Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
law_n faith_n righteousness_n sin_n 12,797 5 5.0529 4 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A49184 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 ... Lorimer, William, d. 1721. 1696 (1696) Wing L3074; ESTC R22582 263,974 188

There are 61 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

requiring no Faith nor Practice in order to obtaining pardon of Sin and Eternal Life through and for the alone Righteousness of Christ 3. What he alledges out of Schindler and Cocceiut their Lexicons to prove that the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah which is rendred Law signifies any instruction given us not only by the Precepts but the Promises of God is wholly impertinent and makes nothing against me For in my Judgment the New Law of Grace is instructive both by Precept and Promise Hence I say in the Apology p. 22. that it is a Covenant-Law which makes rich offers of Grace of Justifying and Glorifying Grace c. And again a little after that this Law of Grace is the Conditional part of the Covenant of Grace it is that part of the Covenant of Grace which respects the way of God's dispensing to us the subsequent Blessings and Benefits of the Covenant such as pardon of Sin and Eternal Salvation Briefly As it is a Law of Grace to us it is that part of the Covenant which prescribes to us the Condition to be performed through Grace on our part and which promises us Pardon and Life for Christ's sake alone when we through Grace perform the Condition and therefore it must needs be very instructive both by Precept and Promise 4. What Mr. G. often says that the Gospels being called a Law signifies no more but that it is a Doctrine I utterly deny it in his sense of the word Doctrine nor doth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah its being derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Horah prove any such thing Buxtorf who understood the Hebrew as well as any Man in these latter Ages tells us in his Lexicon pag. 337. that the whole word of God is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law quod nos de Dei voluntate erga nos nostro officio erga Deum proximum nostrum doceat erudiat Because it instructs us and teaches us Gods Will towards us and our Duty towards God and our Neighbour Thus Buxtorf Now if the whole Word of God be called a Law for that reason then the Gospel Covenant which is a principal part of the word of God is called a Law for the same reason to wit because it teacheth us Gods Will towards us and our Duty towards God and our Neighbour Accordingly it is freely granted that the Gospel Govenant is a Doctrine and a Doctrine of Grace but withal it is to be alwayes remembred that it is a Doctrine which not only promises gracious Benefits and Blessings on Gods part but also requires a Condition to be performed and terms to be complyed with through Grace on our part Hence the Evangelical Prophet Isa 2.3 saith he the Lord will teach us of his ways and we will walk in his paths And proves what he had said by this reason for out of Sion shall go forth the Law c. Mr. G. confesses that by Law here is meant the Gospel and then it follows that the Gospel is a Doctrine which reacheth us the Lords ways not only the ways wherein he walks with us but also the ways and paths wherein we walk with him Mr G would have the wayes which the Lord teacheth his People by the Gospel to be only the ways which the Lord himself walks in He would have them to denote only the order which God hath constituted for himself to observe in justifying Sinners But certainly that Interpretation is too short for the ways which God hath prescribed unto us to walk in are called Gods ways in Scripture Gen. 18.19 and he is also said to teach them his People Psal 86.11 and 119. ver 32 33 c. John 6.45 and particularly he teacheth us that it is our Duty to believe in Christ for Justification and Salvation And as Christ is the way unto the Father so Faith is the way unto Christ This the Gospel Law the Law of Faith teacheth us this Faith it prescribes to us and requires of us Acts 16.31 and consequently the Gospel in being said to be a Law it is said to be such a Doctrine as teacheth us the way we are to walk in such a Doctrine as prescribes to us some Means to be used and Condition to be performed by us brough Grace that we may through Christ his Righteousness and Intercession obtain the promised Blessings of Justification and Glorification And this my Reverend Brother sometimes hath Light to discern and Freedom to confess in part as in pag. 15. where he says That according to the usual Language of Gods word to walk in Gods ways is to observe his orders and appointments the expression here may denote no more than that they would punctually keep to the way of Salvation marked out by him and seek to be justifyed no otherwise than by Christ's Blood and Righteousness as the Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes Thus he Now 1. Concerning this seeking to be justifyed by Christ's Blood and Righteousness only which the Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes I demand of Mr. Goodwin whether it be something or nothing If he say that it is nothing Then 1. The Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes to us seeking that is it prescribes nothing And that is an odd way of prescribing to prescribe and yet to prescribe nothing 2 It is as odd a way of seeking for to seek by doing nothing But if to avoid this absurdity he say that seeking is something then I affirm that that something must be some Work or Act of the Soul And if so then we have what we desire to wit that the Gospel is a Law For he says that the Law or Doctrine of the Gospel prescribes seeking and seeking is some Work or Act therefore the Gospel prescribes some Work or Act. And what it prescribes to us unto that it obliges us and so by necessary consequence it is a Law that obliges us to Work and Act and by that means to seek Justification by Christ's Blood and Righteousness only 2ly It is further to be observed That the seeking which the Gospel Law prescribes is very comprehensive as the word seeking is used in the Scriptures of Truth It is a word that signifies the diligent use of the Means which the Lord hath appointed for obtaining the thing sought But so it is that as is proved in the Apology the Lord hath appointed Faith and Repentance to be means to be used on our part for obtaining Justification by Christ's Blood and Righteousness only Repentance is the means or condition dispositive of the Subject Man that he may be pardoned and justified by Faith in Christ's Blood and Righteousness only And Faith is the only means instrumental or Condition receptive and applicative of the object Christ and his Righteousness by and for which Object alone Man is justified and pardoned And therefore the gospel-Gospel-Law by prescribing the foresaid seeking which signifies the diligent use of all appointed means
Law of Works This was briefly explained and proved in the Apology pag. 200 201. and it might be further confirmed if it were needful But it is not needful because to a Man who knows himself to be a Sinner and understands the Nature of that first Law as every Man of common understanding may do it is self-evident that that Law condemns him to Death for his Sin and that it is simply impossible for him to be justified unto Life by that very Law which every moment condemns him to death And yet it must be confessed that the first Law or Covenant of Works as fortisied with its Promissory Sanction is repeated both in the Old and New Testament where the Scripture saith to Sinful Man Do this and live Levit. 18.5 Rom. 10.5 Gal. 3.12 But we must know that this was Occonomical and Gods design in it was not to oblige any sinful Man to seek or expect Life by his doing the Works of the first Law and Covenant which Promised Life to Man only on condition that he so kept it as never to sin at all nor by Sin to break it But then you will say What was Gods design in it I answer That so far as the Lord hath given me light to see into this matter his design seems to have been 1. By setting before us the form of the First Covenant of Works to recal to our minds what Man once was and what he should still have been That once he was without all Sin and able to have continued so and to have lived for ever by keeping Covenant with God 2. To convince us that now we are all in our Natural State Dead Men by that very Law and Covenant which would have secured Life to us if we had perfectly kept it but now brings us all under the guilt of Death Temporal and Eternal Death because we have broken it 3. To stir us up to confess our Sin and Misery and to put us upon searching Whether God hath in Mercy provided any remedy against our Sin and Misery 4. To make us willing to receive and use the Remedy as soon as God discovers it to us In a word to make us despair of ever obtaining Life by the Works of that Law which condemns us to death for our sins and to make us flee for Refuge unto Christ our Help and Hope as God offers him to us in the New Covenant or Law of Grace 2dly It is to be observed That as soon as any Man takes this course assoon as any Man takes hold of the New Covenant of Grace and heartily and sincerely by Faith closes with and receives Christ and his Righteousness as offered and held forth in the said New Covenant he is instantly acquitted from the guilt of Death he was under for breaking the Law and hath a Right to Life given him only on the account of the Lord Redeemer Christ and his Satisfactory Meritorious Righteousness received and applyed by Faith alone And so he is justifyed by Faith without Works For though Faith in Christ the Mediator be in it self a Heart-work yet it is not the Works of the Law it is not any of those Works which the First Covenant or Law of Works did require to Justification It is neither a Work which the Natural Moral Law by it self immediately required nor yet is it a Work in the Sense of the Law of Works for Works in the sense of that Law and Covenant they signifie that Obedience to the Law whereby a Man in his own person fulsills the Righteousness of the Law and that for which a Man is justified But Faith is not a Work in that Sense for as much as it is no part at all of that Obedience which sulfills the Law and for which a penitent Believer is justified It is only Christs Obedience unto Death even the Death of the Cross for which Believers are justified and Faith is no part of it but is the only instrumental means or receptive applicative condition whereby we come to have interest in it and to be justified by and for it alone 3. It is to be observed that though upon our first taking hold of Gods New Covenant and Law of Grace by Faith we are for Christs sake alone instantly acquitted from the guilt of Death and receive a right to Life yet God hath made it one of the Articles of the new Covenant that according to our time and talents we must afterwards yield sincere Obedience to his several Laws and Institutions both Moral Natural and Positive before we be admitted to full possession of Eternal Life in Heavenly Glory God doth not require this sincere Obedience in order to our being first justified but in order to our being at last glorified And he requires it as a necessary condition to qualifie and prepare us for the full possession of that Heavenly Glory which Christ hath purchased for us and God for Christs sake gives unto us Hence 4. It is to be observed That thus the Moral Natural Law it self comes to be in the hand of Christ the Mediatour of the new Covenant or Law of Grace and to belong to the Gospel so far as that sincere Obedience to it together with all Gods positive Laws and Institutions is made an Article of the Gospel Covenant and a condition necessary to be performed by us before we enjoy the ultimate benefit promised in the said Covenant 5. It is to be observed That we must distinguish carefully betwixt what the Moral Law as to the matter of its Precepts requires of Believers and what it requires as coming under a new ferm that is plainly as cloathed with a new sanction to wit the sanction of the new Covenant In the first sense the Moral Law as to the matter of its Precepts doth still require of all even of Believers a perfect ever sinless Obedience de futuro but there is this vast difference between the case of Believers and Unbelievers that though for every the least disobedience it condemn the Unbeliever yet doth it not nor can it condemn the true penirent Believer who walks not after the Flesh but the Spirit because the Apostle saith There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit Rom. 8.1 such are not under the Law not under its condemmng power but under Grace Rom. 6.14 In the second sense the Moral Law formally considered as cloathed with the new Covenant form that is with the sanction of the new Covenant so it requires not of true penitent Believers an ever sinless and most perfect personal perpetual Obedience as a means or condition necessary to qualifie and prepare them for the possession of Eternal Glory but it requires of them or God by it as taken into the Gospel requires of them only sincere Evangelical Obedience perseverance in true Faith and sincere Holiness under that formal consideration as a means or condition necessary to the end aforesaid
of Works that Man should sin no more for the future but its Condition and Duty is that Man should never once sin at all either in time past present or to come And assoon as he hath once sinned he hath ipso facto so broken that Covenant that from that very moment it ceases to be unto him a Covenant of Life for ever as we heard before out of Rutherford because it admits of no Repentance with a Promise of Pardon and Life The Condition then and Duty of the Covenant of Works being now simply impossible to sinful Men it cannot be said with any colour of Truth that it is easie to be performed through Grace it cannot be said of the Covenant of Works as Moses hath it ver 14. The word is very nigh unto thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that thou may'st do it The quite contrary is true with respect to the First Covenant the Covenant of Works the performing of its Duty and Condition is so far off from sinful Men such as the Israelites were that it is impossible to be brought near unto them till both ends of a real contradiction be made to meet in one and the same thing be made to be and not to be at the same time and in the same respect And as it cannot be truely said to be very nigh so it cannot be truely said to be in the Mouth and Heart of sinful Men that they may do it That were to say that it is in Mens Mouth and Heart to do that which implys a contradiction and is impossible to be done But on the other hand it may be truely said of the Gospel or New Covenant and it's Duty and Condition that through Grace circumcising the Heart to love God The word is very nigh unto thee in thy Mouth and in thy Heart that thou may'st do it Thus the Blessed Apostle Paul understood this Passage and quoted the Sense and Substance and partly the very words of Moses and applyed them unto and affirmed them of the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace as distinct from and opposite unto the Law and Covenant of Works For in Rom. 10.5 The Apostle first shews out of Levit. 18.5 in what Form of words Moses described the Law and Covenant of Works and its Righteonsness That the Man which doth those things shall live by them Secondly In vor 6 7. c he doth himself out of Moses Deut. 30. ver 11 12 13 14. describe and explain the nature of the Gospel Covenant and its Righteousness He calls it the Righteousness of Faith and shews how we obtain it by Christ's Purchasing it for us and giving it unto us we receiving it by Faith and shewing our Faith and Thankfulness for it by confessing him who purchased it which implyes a steadfast cleaving to the Lord with purpose of heart against all temptations to the contrary For these Reasons I do believe that the Covenant in Deut. 29. and 30. Chapter is not the First Covenant or Law of Works but the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace And consequently that the Gospel Covenant hath Precepts and requires Duty And this is no New Opinion of my inventing but is the real Truth as I have proved from the words of Moses and a Truth also now commonly received by the Orthodox I know that there are some Learned Men of a different Judgment the Arminians are of that sort and particularly Episcopius as appears from his Paraphrase and Observations on Rom 10. ver 5 6 8. which Exposition of his seems to be founded upon that Opinion of theirs That the Covenant of which Moses speaks there or elsewhere in the Books of the Law did not promise Eternal Life but only a Temporal Prosperous Life in the Land of Canaan to them who sincerely indeavoured to keep the Laws given them by Moses See Mat. 19.16 17. Joh. 5.39 which I think is contrary to Gal. 3.11 12. for the Life which the Apostle denyes to be possible to be obtained by the Law because all Men have broken it seems to be of the same kind with that Life which he affirms to be obtained by Faith But it is Spiritual and Eternal Life which is obtained by Faith therefore it is Spiritual and Eternal Life likewise which he denyes to be obtainable by the Works of the Law And the reason why it was not so obtainable was because no Man did or could keep the Law so as not to fall under its curse even such a curse as Christ redeems from Gal. 3.10 and 13. compared The Apostle sayes ver 21. If there had been a law given which could have given life verily righteousness should have been by the law He doth not any where say that the Law could not give Eternal Life because it had no promise of Eternal Life But elsewhere to wit in Rom. 8.3 he assigns the true reason why the Law of Works could not give life Eternal Life even because● it was weak through the flesh It was the Sin of Man that disabled the Law of Works that it could not give that Eternal Life which after the Fall it promised only oeconomically that is it proposed and set Eternal Life before Mens Eyes in a form of words which before the Fall was really promissory of Eternal Life upon a possible condition but after the Fall did but serve to remind us what Man once was and what he should still have been what he might have done and what he might have attained unto by doing but that having broken that Covenant we are all lyable to Eternal Death and can never obtain Eternal Life by it and therefore that it behoves us to seek Eternal Life and Salvation by Christ only upon the terms of the Gospel and New Law or Covenant of Grace as was more fully explained before This only I briefly hint on the by I hope the R. Brother with whom I have to do will not flee from me into the Arminian Camp and from thence come out against me clad with their Golia●s Armour for it will not well become Mr. Goodwin though he could dexterously serve himself with it which yet is very questionable But let him do in that matter as best pleaseth him I am resolved to abide where I am in the Camp of the Orthodox and thence I oppose the Authority and Reasons of Fr. Junius in his Parallels Second Book and Sixteenth Parallel where he explains Rom. 10.5 6 7 8. by comparing it with Leviticus the 18th and Deuteronomy the 30th Of the same Judgment with Junius is the Learned Professour of Saumur Stephanus de Brais as appears by his Paraphrase and Notes at the end of his Paraphrase on the Epistle to the Romans pag. 336 337. Rutherford was also of that mind as is evident by these his words This Covenant to wit of Grace hath the promise of a circumcised heart Deut. 30.6 and of the word of faith that is near in the mouth and of the Righteousness of Faith clearly differenced
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 righ● 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
thee for ever And as for thee do thou walk before me and be thou perfect or sincere And these are the Conditions of the Covenant or Agreement By this also we see that above 100 years ago our Doctrine was maintained by the Reformed in Switzerland to wit That the Gospel-Covenant hath Precepts which prescribe to us Conditions and require Duties of us Now what shall one think or say of those men who in Print boldly contradict this plain matter of Fact and some of them are not ashamed to say that Christ hath helped them to write such falshoods I am almost weary in transcribing Testimonies against such unchristian asserting of Falshoods in matter of Fact and therefore lest I should quite tire both my self and the Reader I will bring but a few more tho I could bring very many My 6th Witness then shall be that holy and faithful Minister of Christ Mr. Shephard of New England whose words are † Mr. Shephard's Theses Sabbaticae Thes 110. pag. 78. edit Lond. 1649. The Gospel under which believers now are requires no doing say they for doing is proper to the Law the Law promiseth life and requireth conditions but the Gospel say they promiseth to work the condition but requires none and therefore a believer is now wholly free from all Law But says Mr. Shephard the Gospel and Law are taken two ways 1. Largely the Law for the whole Doctrine contained in the Old Testament and the Gospel for the whole Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles contained in the New Testament 2. Strictly the Law pro lege Operum as Chamier distinguisheth and the Gospel pro lege fidei i.e. For the Law of Faith The Law of works strictly taken is that Law which reveals the Favour of God and Eternal Life upon condition of doing or of perfect Obedience The Law of Faith strictly taken is that Doctrine which reveals remission of sins and reconciliation with God by Christ's Righteousness only apprehended by Faith Now the Gospel in this latter Sense excludes all works and requires no doing in point of Justification and Remission of sins before God but only believing But take the Gospel largely for the whole Doctrine of Gods Love and Free Grace and so the Gospel requires doing for as it is an Act of God's free Grace to justifie a man without calling for any works thereunto so it is an Act of the same free grace to require works of a person justified and that such poor sinners should stand before the Son of God on his Throne to minister unto him and serve him in righteousness and holiness all the days of our lives Tit. 2 14. And for any to think that the Gospel requires no conditions is a sudden Dream against hundreds of Scriptures which contain conditional yet Evangelical Promises and against the Judgment of the most Judicious of our Divines c. Thus Mr. Shephard where it is observable 1. That according to him the Gospel even strictly taken as it respects Justification only requires the Duty and Condition of believing And therein I agree with him that it requires Faith and only Faith as that whereby we apprehend Christ's Righteousness for to do that is the Office of Faith alone and of no other Grace or Duty 2. It is observable that according to him the Gospel taken largely not for all the books of the New Testament but for the whole Doctrine of God's Love and free Grace so it requires doing of Justified Persons and it requires not only the Duty of believing but it also requires that we serve God in righteousness and holiness all the days of our lives This is plain and so plain that I hope no honest man who fears God and loves truth will ever dare to deny it For my own part I must profess to the world that I am perswaded it is my Duty to lose my life rather than impudently deny so plain a matter of Fact 3. It is to be observed that tho Mr. Shephard do not here mention Repentance in order to remission of sins yet afterwards in p. 94. of the same book he doth expresly mention it as well as Faith tho it have not the same use and office which Faith hath in Justification His words are Is not this preaching of the Gospel the iustrument and means of working that Faith in us which the Lord requires of us in the Gospel And must not Jesus Christ use the means for the end were not those 3000 brought unto Chrïst by Faith by Peter 's promise of remission of sins upon their Repentance Were not many filled with the Holy-Ghost when they heard this Gospel thus preached upon condition of believing Acts 10.43 c. This was written against one W.C. Whether the Spirit of that person hath possessed any others in our day I will not say let them who are concerned look to that This Testimony of Mr. Shephard I conclude with what he says in p. 79. As do and live hath been accounted good Law or the Covenant of Works so believe and live hath been in former times accounted good Gospel or the Covenant of Grace until now of late this wild Age hath found out new Gospels that Paul and the Apostles did never dream of Now observe here that in this believe and live which Mr. Shephard says in former times used to be accounted good Gospel there is 1. A Precept Believe for it is a Verb of the Imperative Mood which commands and requires the Duty of believing 2. There is a Promise to those who obey the Precept and perform the Duty through Grace That through Christ they shall live But Mr. Goodwin will have the Gospel to be an Absolute Promise without any Precept at all Therefore this is no good Gospel in his Account Whether then he be one of those who have found a New Gospel that Paul and the Apostles did never dteam of let him look to that I hope if he see his mistake he will rectisie it Nullus pudor ad meliora transire My 7th Witness is the Edinburgh Catechism published for the use of the Colledg and Schools in that City in the year 1627. In the Section concerning Christ's Office the words of the Catechism are these * Q. In quem finem constitutus est Rex R. Ut ferret nobis Legem Regiam fidei vitae regulam Jac. 2.8 4.12 Rom. 3 27. Mat. 28.20 ut corda nostra in Legis suae obsequium flecteret Heb. 10.16 Act. 16.14 c. Method Relig. Chrift Catechet in usum Academ Jac. Regis Schol. Edinburgensium a Joanne Adamsono Acad. moderatore primario Edinb A. 1627. For what end was Christ made a King Ans That he might enact a Royal Law for us to be the Rule of our Faith and Life Jam. 2.8 and 4.12 Rom. 3.27 Mat. 28.20 that he might bow and incline our hearts to observe his Law Heb. 10.16 Acts 16.14 that he might invincibly protect and defend us Deut. 33.29 Ps 119.114
one precept that belongs to it will Common sense suffer a Man to infer that therefore it hath in it all precepts that do not belong to it Mr. G. speaks here of the Law that Christ was under and of the Law as it was when Christ was under it in his State of Humiliation Now I will name one precept which the Law that Christ obeyed and fulfilled had not then in it and that was the precept recorded in Gen. 2.17 Of not eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge Our blessed Lord most perfectly obeyed the Law that he was under And yet he did not obey that particular precept of not eating the said Fruit. If it be said that he did not disobey that precept therefore he obeyed it I deny the Consequence obeying and disobeying are not Contradictories but contraries and there is a medium or mean between them And the mean was this that our Lord Christ did neither obey nor disobey that precept of not eating of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge Because as it may be there was no such Tree or Fruit then in the World so it is certain there was then no such precept forbidding Christ or any Man else to eat of the Fruit of that Tree it was at first but a Temporary precept and its obligation had ceased and was utterly gone long before the Son of God was made of a woman made under the Law Gal. 4.4 Now where such a precept doth not at all oblige there is no place either for obedience or disobedience to the said precept I grant it to be a most certain truth that our Lord Christ suffered Death the penalty threatned against Man for disobeying that and the other precepts but it doth not at all follow from thence that Christ either obeyed or disobeyed that positive Temporary precept He most perfectly obeyed every precept of any Law that he was under and so fulfilled all Righteousness His Obedience also was equivalent yea in respect of its worth arising from the infinite Dignity of his Person it was more than equivalent to all the Obedience which Mankind should have performed to that and all other precepts and yet for all that it doth not follow that Christ in humane nature obeyed that precept which was not then in rerum natura so as to oblige any Man to obedience The perfect Law then which Christ most perfectly obeyed wanted the foresaid precept and yet it was perfect because it had all the precepts that belonged to it and wanted only that which did not belong to it Further since my R. B. Speaks here of the Moral Law it is freely granted and always was believed by me that it wants none of its own precepts and that by its own precepts it enjoyns every duty In that way which God intended it should enjoyn every duty Those duties which fall under its precepts without any supernatural Revelation intervening and without any positive precept superadded to the Law of Nature it enjoyns and Commands by it self immediately But there are other duties which do not fall under its precepts without a supernatural Revelation and also without some positive precepts superadded to the Law of Nature and such duties it doth not enjoyn and Command by it self immediately but only mediately and by means of the said positive precepts which do first in order of nature enjoyn and command the said duties and then the Moral Law enjoyns also and commands the same duties by obliging us to obey the positive precepts which first in order of nature require and enjoyn them Thus as hath been shewed the Moral natural Law enjoyns and commands Faith in Christ the Mediator for Justification by his Righteousness only and Evangelical Repentance as a means to dispose and quality us for obtaining the pardon of our sins through Faith in Christs blood It doth not by it self immediately require such Faith and Repentance of all without exception that are under it For then it would have required them also of Christ who was made under the Law Gal. 4.4 It would have obliged the Mediator Christ Jesus to have believed in Christ for Justification and to have repented Evangelically for obtaining the pardon of his sins through Faith in his own Blood Which is absurd and blasphemous to assert But it ro wit the Moral Law requires Faith and Repentance of all that are under it mediately only by means of the positive precepts of the Gospel or Covenant of Grace as hath been before explained and proved But now so it is that the positive precepts of the Gospel or Covenant of Grace which require Faith in Christ the Mediator for Justification and Evangelical Repentance as a means to dispose and prepare us for obtaining pardon of sin were not given unto Christ himself to oblige him thereby to believe in himself for Justification and Evangelically to repent for pardon of sin And therefore the natural Moral Law which he was under and perfectly obeyed did not oblige him unto Justifying Faith and Evangelical Repentance as duties incumbent upon him and to be performed by him in his own person Thus we give upon our principles a clear account how our Lord Christ perfectly obeyed the Law and yet was under no obligation at all to believe in himself for Justification nor to repent for pardon of sin whereas it seems Mr. G. on his Principles must either hold that Christ so believed in himself and repented or else that he transgressed the perfect Law of God by not so believing and repenting Neither of which can be granted without the greatest absurdity Imaginable If he should here say That I my self have granted that the moral natural Law obliges all that are under it to a Legal Repentance But Christ himself was under it and then it will follow That he was obliged to a Legal Repentance which is as bad as to hold That he was obliged to an Evangelical Repentance I could easily answer him That he quite mistakes the matter I never said That the Law of Nature doth absolutely and actually oblige all that are under it to a Legal Repentance but only that it so obliges all mankind that are sinners and upon supposition that they be sinners But now our most holy Lord Jesus was no sinner nor is it possible that he could be a sinner Therefore he neither was nor could possibly be obliged to a Legal Repentance of his sins My R. B. will not own himself to be an Antinomian and therefore I do not say that he holds with some of that Sect that Christ believed for us with a Justifying faith and repented for us with an Evangelical Repentance in that he perfectly kept the Moral Law which by it self immediately requires such Faith and Repentance of all that are under it Only I desire him to guard against that Consequence and look well to it that it be not the natural off-spring of his beloved Opinion If any man should be so weak as to question How we can
sinless perfection whereas the promises of the Gospel are made to obedience in a lower degree of perfection that is to obedience which is sincere tho it be not sinlessly perfect And the consequence of this would be that the Covenant of Grace would be a Covenant of works contrary to Rom. 11.6 I Answer that this R. brother like a Sophister jumbles together and confounds things that should be separated and spoken unto distinctly To wit the conditional promises of Justification and Pardon of sin And the conditional promises of Glorification and Consummate salvation Of the first sort of these promises Evangelical Faith and Repentance are the Condition And of the second sort sincere obedience Evangelical flowing from faith with perseverance therein to the end is the condition Now 1 for the condition of the promise of Justification to wit Evangelical Faith and Repentance they are not at all required in any degree by the old Law strictly taken for the Covenant of works nay the old Covenant or Law of works as such is so far from requiring them that it doth not admit them but of its own nature it Rigorously insists upon and demands a sinlessly perfect perpetual obedience to all its precepts and a personal Righteousness absolutely compleat in all parts and in all degrees without the least sinful defect This and this only is the obedience which the old Covenant of works requires as its condition And upon this condition and for this obedience and personal Righteousness alone it promised to Men not pardon of sin but Justification and Life Eternal By this it plainly appears that the conditions of the promises of the old Covenant of works and of the new Covenant of Grace with respect to Justification differ not meerly in degree but they differ in kind 2. Tho the precepts of the Moral natural Law considered as stript of their old Covenant form Do require Evangelical Faith and Repentance as they require us to believe and obey the precepts of the New and Gospel-Covenant Yet this they do only mediately and consequentially For it is the New and Gospel-Covenant it self which doth immediately and directly by its own precepts require of us Evangelical Faith and Repentance in order to Justification and Pardon of sin 3. Tho the New and Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace doth require of us both Evangelical Faith and Repentance as necessary in order to Justification and Pardon of Sin Yet it is with this difference that it requires Faith as most properly the condition of the Covenant-Promise of Justification but it requires Evangelical Repentance only as a Condition The Reason of this difference I assigned in the Apology thus Faith is most properly the Condition of the Covenant-Promise of Justification because it is that condition or Instrumental means whereby we receive apply and trust the object Christ and his Righteousness by and for which only we are Justified and Pardoned but Evangelical Repentance is most fitly called a Condition of the Covenant-Promise of Justification or Pardon of sin because it is a condition not receptive of the Object Christ as Faith is but d●spositive of the Subject man so necessary in order to his being Justified or Pardoned that the Lord Suspends the Pardoning of Man's Sins till he hath through Grace sincerely Repented of them Isa 55.7 And this is exactly agreeable to the Judgment of Mr. Durham as I shewed before and likewise to the Judgment of Mr. Hutcheson on John 3.18 Doctrine 4. His words are pag. 40. Albeit such as flee to Christ and expect not to be Condemned ought to study Holiness without which no man shall see God yet the Condition required for reversing the Sentence and Absolving the Self-condemned Sinner is only Faith put in Exercise as laying hold on Christ's Righteousness which alone can Answer the Law and endureth constantly whereas our Holyness is imperfect and variable like the Moon therefore it is he that believeth on him or hath Faith in Exercise not in the Habit only that is not Condemned 4. Hence it follows that tho Justifying Faith be required by a Precept of the Gospel-Covenant as our Confession of Faith Chap. 7. Art 3. saith expresly That it requires Faith and tho by Consequence Justifying Faith is an Act of Obedience to that Gospel-Precept which requires it yet it doth not follow that therefore we are Justified by it considered simply as an Act of Obedience For if so then since a quatenus ad omne valet consequentia we should be a-like Justified by any other Act of Obedience which is false But as Mr. Hutcheson said Faith above all other gracious Acts having an aptitude for that use and being only appointed by God to that Office justifies us or we are justified by it alone as laying hold on Christ and his Righteousness and as trusting in Christ and his Righteousness which alone can answer the Law and Justice of God 5. And hence appears one Essential specifical Difference between the Old Law or Covenant of Works and New Covenant of Grace that tho as Essenius saith Compend Dogm Cap. 11. pag. 428. Thes 12. Obedience be required in them both yet in the Old Covenant of Works Man 's own Personal Obedience was required not only as the Condition of his Justification but as the only Righteousness by and for which he could be justified according to that Covenant Whereas in the New Covenant of Grace there is a Mediator by and for whose Mediatorial Righteousness alone we are justified and not one Act of our own Personal Obedience is required as that Righteousness or any par of that Righteousness by and for which we are Justified and Pardoned Neither ●aith nor Repentance are required by the Precepts of the Gospel as any part of that Obedience and Righteousness by and for which we are Justified but Repentance is only required as a Condition or Means to dispose and prepare the Subject Man who is to be justified And Faith is required as the Condition or Instrumental Means to receive apply and trust the Object to wit Christ and his Righteousness by and for which alone we are justified Now this alone though there are many other Respects in which they differ is abundantly sufficient to shew That there is more than a gradual even a specifical difference between the Two Covenants aforesaid with respect to Justification Their Conditions differ in kind and so doth the Righteousness for which the two Covenants do respectively justifie such Persons as come up to and comply with their Terms and Conditions Secondly As for the Condition of the New Covenant-Promise of Glorification and Consummate Salvation to wit sincere Eaangelical Obedience tho materially considered it is partly the same with yet it is also partly different from that Legal Obedience which was required as the Condition of the Old Law and Covenant of works for there are some Positive Precepts which now belong to the New and Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace that did not at all exist of
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 re●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. 22● 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
I concluded but with no certainty from the Gospels being called a Law in the New Testament that it is a Rule of Works c. It is utterly false that I concluded or endeavoured to conclude that from the Gospels being called a Law He cannot to Etornity prove this from any Words of mine in the Apology All that I concluded from the Gospels being called a Law either in the New or Old Testament was that our Brethren should not be offended with us for calling the Gospel a Law since the Scripture calls it by that name Apol. p 22. Next Against some Body who from the Etymology of the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Law had inferred that by it is signifyed a Rule of Duty enacted with a Sanction of Penalty or Recompence he says That he knows no great weight can be laid on Arguments drawn from an Etymology And if he knows this why did he against his knowledge lay great weight on the Etymology of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah and in his second Chapter from the Derivation of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Horah which signifies he teacheth conclude with confidence that Torah Law when used for the Gospel signifies nothing but a Doctrine which requires no Duty of us at all 2 Why doth he here again in his Third Chapter p. 17. conclude that the Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when the Gospel is named by it signifies no more but such a Doctrine as aforesaid because the Septuagint render the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as most fitting to express such a sense Is not this Argument grounded upon the Etymology of Torah and consequently it is grounded upon an uncertainty by his own Confession But it seems that same way of arguing which is of no force against our Brethren must be esteemed to be of great force against us because so is the Will and Pleasure of this Reverend Brother All the rest of this Chapter is taken up in giving the World an account of his Sense of Gal. 2.19 which he had from Luther and I do not doubt to make it appear before we have done that as Luther held the Gospel to be a Law so he held that the Gospel-Law requires of us Faith in Christ and Evangelical Repentance And I am sure that both Jerome and Primasius Two Ancient Fathers who in their Commentaries on Gal. 2 19. did that way interpret the words of Paul I through the Law am dead to the Law as if he had said I through the Evangelical Law am dead to the Old Law I say I am sure that both of them by the Evangelical Law understood such a Gospel-Law as hath not only Promises but also hath its own Precepts and Threatnings as manife●●ly appears by what they write in their Commentaries on Gal. 3.13 And having briefly hinted this That Jerome Primasius and Luther who all Three go one way and there think to have found the Evangelical Law yet did not by the Evangelical Law understand a mere Speculative Doctrine or Narrative that requires nothing at all neither Faith nor Repentance I might very well pass over Mr. G's fine flourish upon the Words of the Apostle as not worth my taking any further notice of had not he dropped several gross falsehoods in giving his Sense of that Text. As 1. That the Error of the Galathians against which Paul wrote was that they held the Gospel to be a New Law Disc p. 18. in the same Sense that we hold it so to be This I say is a gross falsehood for it is manifest that those Galathians were Judaizing Christians whose Error was That Men cannot be Justifyed and Saved unless over and besides their believing in Christ and repenting of their Sins they be Circumcised and keep the Law of Moses See Acts 15.1 compared with Gal. 2.4 Gal. 4. ver 9 10 21. and 5 ver 1.2 3 4 5 6. If then those Erroneous Galathians had any true and right Notion at all of Justification by Christ's Imputed Righteousness yet it is plain They thought that Christ's Imputed Righteousness received by Faith was not alone sufficient for Ju●tification but tha● Men mu●● joyn to it their own Mosaical Ceremonial and Moral Righteousness as a part of their Justifying Righteousness before God Now can our Reverend Brother with a good Conscience say that I or any of my Brethren are for such a way of Justification by the Righteousness of Moses his Law joyned with the Imputed Righteousness of Christ as that by and for which we are Justified and Live 2. In Page 19 20 21 he all along insinuates plainly That we hold we are Justifyed in part by our own Works done in obedience to the New Gospel Law and that the defect of Christ's Righteousness is made up by the super-addition of our own Righteousness to his so that we are Justifyed before Gods Tribunal not only by Christ's Imputed Righteousness but also in part by and for our own Works and Righteousness This is another falsehood so gross that I wonder my Reverend Brother should ever be guilty of it if he hath read and understood our Apology pag 38 39 40 45 80 89 90 91 193 196 200 201. This Opinion which he would father upon us we have in our Apology rejected and do now here again reject it with abhorrency And therefore it any do hereafter persist to charge us with this Error which we abhor let them look to it that they do not force us in our own just defence to proclaim them to the World to be Men possess'st with a caluminating lying Spirit But I hope I shall never be forced upon the doing of that which is so much against my Christian temper which inclines me rather to conceal and cover the Failings of Brethren than to discover them and proclaim them to the World I do sincerely desire and through Grace shall endeavour if it be possible and as much as lyeth in me to live peaceably with all Men Rom. 12.18 And to live lovingly too with my Reverend Brethren giving them all due respect and being ever ready to serve them in the Lord. Remarks on the Fourth Chapter IN this Chapter at the very beginning he mistakes my purpose and design in appealing to the Fathers in this Controversie which was not by them as Judges to prove any matter of right as he pretends but only by them as Witnesses to prove matter of Fact to wit That they called the Gospel a Law in a good sense See Apol. p. 24. and that therefore it is no new word of an Old but Ill meaning as our Accuser had affirmed it to be and doth Mr. G. refute this No he is so far from refuting it that he confirms the Truth of what I said and with me proves the Accuser of the Brethren to have asserted a notorious falshood in matter of Fact in the face of a Learned Age. Then he quotes
our Saviour Jesus Christ In which Sense it comprehends the Absolute and Conditional Promises together with the prescription of the Condition to the performers of which the Conditional Promises were made on the account of Christ and his Righteousness Now it is in this sense that we say the Gospel taken for the Covenant of Grace is a Law of Grace It is a Law as it prescribes the Condition and obliges us to compliance therewith and it is a Law of Grace as it promises to penitent Believers most gracious Benefits and Blessings and likewise as it promises to the Elect Special Effectual and Victorious Grace whereby they do most freely and yet most certainly Believe and Repent And that in this sense the Gospel is so a Doctrine of Grace as to be also a Law of Grace that requires something to be done by us through Grace is evident from the Assemblies Confession of Faith Chap. 7. Art 3. where it says expresly That in the Covenant of Grace the Lord freely offered unto Sinners Life and Salvation by Jesus Christ requiring of them Faith in him that they may be saved and promising to give unto all those that are ordained to Life his Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe And no less evident it is from the larger Catechisme where to the question How is the Grace of God manifested in the Second Covenant It answers That the Grace of God is manifested in the Second Covenant in that he freely provideth and offereth to Sinners a Mediator and Life and Salvation by him and requiring Faith as the Condition to Interest them in him promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit c. Likewise the Confession of Faith Chap. 3. Art 8. saith That the Doctrine of Predestination affords matter of Praise Reverence and Admiration of God and of Humility Diligence and abundant Consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel Accordingly the Lord himself in the Scriptures of Truth assures us that Unbelievers and Wicked Men to whom the Word is Preached do not obey the Gospel and that they shall be Damned for not obeying it In Rom. 10.16 the Apostle proves their disobedience to the Gospel from their Unbelief as the Effect from the Cause See also 2 Thess 1.7 8 9. 1 Pet. 4.17 from all which it is evident that the Gospel in the sense aforesaid is a Law of Grace to the People of God And I hope my R Brother will not be such an Unbeliever as to refuse its being a Law of Grace to him also Secondly It is to be considered that there is a difference to be put between an accurate perfect Definition of a thing which doth indeed contain whatever is essential to the thing defined and a Popular Description of a thing which yet in a large Sense may be called a definition but then it is acknowledged to be definitio imperfecta oratorum propria An imperfect definition and such as is proper for Orators to make use of and accordingly my R Brother pag. 28. lin 8. hath these numerical words as signifying the same thing when they professedly define or describe the Gospel Now it is not necessary that a popular definition or description should alwayes contain every thing that is essential unto that which is so defined or described Thirdly It is to be considered that the Gospel taken in a limited restrained sense for one part of supernatural Revealed Religion may be and indeed ought to be defined or described one way but taken in a more large comprehensive Sense for another or more parts of Supernatural Revealed Religion As for instance For the Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediator it may be and indeed ought to be defined or described another way so that what is not Essential to it taken in a limited restrained Sense yet may be and is Essential to it taken in a more large and comprehensive Sense Fourthly It is to be well considered and carefully remembred that when our first Reformers deny the Gospel to be a Law as they frequently do It is in the Popish Socinian or Arminian Sense and it is mostly in the Popish Sense for it was with the Papists for the most part that they had to do when they denyed the Gospel to be a Law For instance Mr. Fox in his Book against the Papists de Christo gratis Justificante denyes the Gospel to be a Law in their sense as we also do and yet as was shewed in the Apology pag. 96.128 he maintain'd that Faith is the proper Condition of Justification and that Evangelical Repentance is a Condition preparatory and dispositive of the Subject to be justified which is sufficient to show That though he denyed the Gospel to be a Law in the Popish Sense yet he did in effect hold it to be a Law of Grace in our Sense Fifthly It is to be considered hat there is a vast difference between a Law of Works and a Law of Grace For according to the Scriptural Sense of the word a Law of Works is a Law the observance and keeping of which is a mans Justifying Righteousness it is the Righteousness by and for which he is Justifyed at the Bar of Gods governing Justice But a Law of Grace is not such our Obedience to the Law of Grace is not our Justifying Righteousness at the Bar of Gods Justice either in part or in whole It is only either 1. That whereby we are disposed for being Justifyed by Faith in Christ and his Righteousness only such as is Evangelical Repentance Or 2. It is that whereby we receive apply and trust to Christ and his Righteousness by and for which alone we are Justifyed at the Bar of God's Justice such as is true Faith only Or. 3. It is that whereby we are qualified and disposed for the actual possession of that Eternal Glory and Happyness which we received a Right unto before in our Justification and which immediately after this Life is given to us in the full possession as to the Soul for the sake of Christ's Meritorious Righteousness only such as is sincere Evangelical Obedience Now though we believe the Gospel to be a Law of Grace which obliges us to Faith Repentance and sincere Obedience as means in order to the ends aforesaid yet we utterly deny that it is a Law of Works nor doth it follow from our Principles Sixthly It is to be considered that we ought to distinguish between the Moral Natural Law and meer positive Laws Now it is granted by us all That the Lord after his Incarnation did not give unto his People a New Moral Natural Law nor did he perfect and fill up the defects of the Old Moral Natural Law neither did he enlarge the obligation of it so as to make it oblige People to some Moral Natural Duties which it obliged no Body unto under the Old Testament In this sense Papists Socinians and Arminians hold Christ to have been a New Law giver but this Opinion we
G quotes there out of Chemnitius and Beza concerning the Papists confounding Law and Gospel its being the occasion of many pernicious Errors in the Church is impertinently alledged against us for we are so far from confounding the Law and the Gospel as Papists do that on the contrary we believe the Gospel to be a Law of Grace only but not at all to be a Law of Works in the Scriptural or Popish sense of that word And in our Apology we plainly stated the difference between the Law and Gospel and the Righteousness of the one and the other in so much that whoever reads understands believes and observes what we there wrote on that subject is so far out of danger of the Popish Errors in the matter of Justification and Salvation that it is plainly impossible for him to embrace any of them without first renouncing some of those great Truths which we have plainly there laid down in vindicating our selves from the Calumnies of the Informer and of the Accuser of the Brethren So much in Answer to his first set of Testimonies relating to the definition or description of the Gospel SECT III. His Second Set of Testimonies Examined and Answered HIS next set of Testimonies of Reformed Divines is to prove as he says pag. 36. by their express words that when they call the Gospel a Law they intend no more by it but a pure Doctrine of Grace To which I Answer 1. In general That in a sound sense I grant the Gospel Law is no other than a pure Doctrine of Grace as was said before But in his sense I deny that they held the Gospel-Law to be nothing but a pure Doctrine of Grace so as not to require any thing of us no not so much as Faith in Christ I shewed the contrary before from their own express words in the 20th Article of the Augustan Confession which Luther and Calvin both subscribed Secondly I give a particular Answer to the several Testimonies which Mr. G. alledges And 1. As for the Testimonies of Luther quoted out of his Commentaries on Gal. 2. and Isai 2. His First Testimony as to the first part of it concerns us not at all for we abhor that Opinion of Justitiaries as much as ever Luther did and we declare it to be Blasphemy to think say or write that the Gospel is no other than a Book which contains new Laws concerning Works as the Turks Dream of their Alcoran 2. As to the Second part of his first Testimony That the Gospel is a Preaching concerning Christ that he forgives Sins gives Grace Justifies and saves Sinners It is very true but is not the whole Truth for over and besides that it is also a Preaching concerning Christ that requires Faith in Christ According to the Augustan Confession and according to what we before heard from Luther himself in his little Book of Christian Liberty and which is far more according to the Scriptures of Truth 3. As to the third part of his Testimony That the Precepts found in the Gospel are not the Gospel but Expositions of the Law and Appendixes of the Gospel It is to be rightly understood As 1 They are not the whole Gospel Nor 2. Are they the principal part of the Gospel from which it chiefly hath its Denomination For the Promises are that part 3. It is confest that there are indeed Precepts found written somewhere in the Books of the New Testament which are no part of the Gospel Covenant in its last and best form of Administration but they belong to the first Law of Works or to the Typical Legal Form of Administring the Covenant of Grace yet there are other Precepts for instance that which Commands Faith in Christ as the Instrumental means of receiving and applying Christ and his Righteousness for Justification and this Precept even in Luthers Judgment as we have proved belongs to the Gospel And it is indeed one Article of the Gospel-Covenant that we believe in Christ Acts 16.31 Rom. 10.8 9 10. The Second Testimony from Luthers Commentary on Isai 2. is impertinently alledged and proves nothing but what we firmly believe that the Gospel is not a Law or Doctrine of Works for Justification but a Law or Doctrine of Faith even a new Doctrine as Luthers expression is or Law of Grace 2. In the second place he brings a Testimony of Calvin out of his Commentary on Isai 2.3 which as Mr. G alledges it is impertinent For it proves nothing against us We grant also to our R Brother that the way of arguing he mentions in Pag. 38. would be impertinent And I assure him it is not my way of arguing to conclude from the Gospels being named a Law that it is a Doctrine of Works For I do not believe that it is a Doctrine or Law of Works at all in the Scripture sense of that word i. e. a Doctrine of Works by and for which Justification and Salvation are to be sought after 3. Thirdly for the Testimony out of Musculus on Isai 2. I admit it as not being in the least against me And it is notorious that he was for the conditionality of the Covenant as we are 4. Nor Fourthly doth Gualters Testimony make against me in the least if it be not wrested by a false gloss put on his words as if he had said That the Law of Faith doth not require Faith But he doth not say so in the words quoted by Mr. G 5. The Passage quoted out of Vrsin on Isai 2.3 makes rather for us than against us and therefore it was impertinently alledged And it is well known that Vrsin was not against but for Conditions in the Gospel-Covenant And in my Remarks on the next Chapter I shall prove by his own express formal words that he believed as we do that the Gospel hath Precepts of its own which require of us Faith and Repentance 6. Nor doth the Passage cited out of Chemnitius his Common Places contradict my Principles but it rather confirms them And I am well assured that he held Justifying Faith to be Commanded and required by the Gospel See his common places in Folio pag. 219. 7. And lastly For Wittichius his Testimony the first part of it doth not so much as seem to be against me for it contains my Principle exprest to my mind I do heartily agree with him that no Works of ours neither Repentance nor yet Faith are or can be the cause of our Justification as perfect personal Works were to have been the cause and ground of Adam's Justification by the first Covenant and Law of Works if he had never broken it But for the second part of his Testimony if he intends thereby to deny that either Faith or Repentance are required as antecedently in order of Nature necessary unto Justification by and for the alone-Righteousness of Christ Then I do reject that part of his Testimony as unsound and contrary to Holy Scripture and to the Judgment of our more
Orthodox Divines But I suppose Wittichius means only that saving Faith and Repentance are not required as antecedently necessary in order of time but that we are justifyed assoon as we believe and repent And so I agree with him Or it may be he meant that Faith is not necessarium justificationis praerequisitum ut simpliciter opus a necessary praerequisite unto Justification considered simply as a work And so I likewise agree with him For though Faith be really an inward Heart work and though it be pre required as necessary unto Justification yet it is neither praerequired nor required unto Justification simply and precisely as a work and under that formal consideration But only as the receptive applicative Condition or as the Instrumental means appointed by God for receiving applying and trusting Christ and his Righteousness alone unto Justification Thus I have examined and answered Mr. G 's second set of Testimonies and shewed that not one of them rightly understood makes against me What he writes in the close of this Sixth Chapter hath in effect and upon the matter Diso p. 41. been answered before And 1. It is not true that we confound the Notions of things which are entirely distinct in their Natures and Idea's For if one take the Gospel in his sense for a bundle of meer absolute promises of what God in Christ will do without requiring any thing at all to be done by us we freely grant that it is no Law at all to us in any proper sense But now the World knows very well or may know by our Apology that that is not the thing which we mean by the Gospel when we affirm it to be a Law of Grace But in truth the thing which we have declared we mean by the Gospel when we affirm it to be a Law of Grace is no other but the Covenant of Grace made with us through Christ which comprehends not only Absolute but Conditional Promises also and which prescribes to us the performance of the Condition and tells us we must through Grace perform it or we shall not have the benefits promised In this true proper comprehensive sense the Gospel is indeed a Law to us a Law of Grace but not a Law of Works For as hath been said though it require Duties of us which are indeed Works yet the Gospel Covenant doth not require them of us under that formal Notion as Works to be justifyed and glorifyed by and for them But 1. It requires Evangelical Repentance not as a Work to be Justified by and for either in whole or in part but as a Condition in the Subject or Person to be Justifyed necessary to dispose and qualifie him for Justification by and for Christ's Righteousness only 2. It requires true Faith in Christ not as a work to be justified for it in whole or in part but as the only condition or instrumental means whereby we apprehend receive apply and trust to Christ and his Righteonsness as the only Righteousness whereby and for which alone we are justifyed at the Bar of Gods Justice 3 It requires Obedience flowing from Faith Obedience I say to the whole revealed Will of God not simply as Obedience or Works for which we are glorifyed but as Evangelically sincere and growing up to perfection as a testimony of our thankfulness for our Redemption and Justification as a means of glorifying God of Crediting our Holy Religion of Edifying our Neighbour and of evidencing the sincerity of our Faith and finally as a Condition necessary by the Constitution of God to prepare and qualifie us for obtaining Possession of Eternal Glory for the alone meritorious Righteousness of Christ our Lord and Saviour So that the Gospel thus requiring these things is not a Law of Works but of Grace especially considering that it is by Grace that we do these things required and that the Grace whereby we do them is promised in the Gospel and by the Spirit given according to the promise And that when through Grace we have done them then God of his rich Mercy and Free Grace gives us for Christs sake the blessings and benefits promised to those who do the Duties required Secondly As to what my Reverend Brother saith That the Gospel hath no minatory sanction that no Threatning doth properly belong to it I answer 1. That if one take the Gospel as he doth for a bundle of meer absolute Promises then it is very true that in that sense it hath no minatory sanction no threatning doth properly belong to it and for my part I declare that I never said nor thought nor could deliberately think that a Threatning was any part of it either properly or improperly as taken in that too narrow limited sense for meer absolute Promises of what God in Christ will do for us without requiring any thing to be done by us But 2. Take the Gospel in that sense in which I take it for the intire Gospel-Covenant which God hath not only declared to but made with his Church through the Mediator Jesus Christ then my Answer is That though the Gospel taken oven in this comprehensive sense for the whole of the new Covenant of Grace made with us through Christ should have no Threatning properly belonging to it yet that would not hinder it from being a Law of Grace For it is properly enough a Law of Grace to us 1. As it prescribes to us its condition to be performed by us 2. As it promises Grace to enable us to perform its condition 3. As it promises to us great and gratuitous benefits upon our performing its condition through Grace 3. I answer That over and besides the Threatning of the first Covenant and Law of Works which Mr. G. fancies that the Gospel promise doth borrow and employ in its own service the Gospel-Covenant hath as plainly appears to me its own additional Threatning which I think is thus to be understood that though a Threatning doth not belong to the Gospel-Covenant as a Gospel-Covenant primarily and principally yet it belongs to it secondarily and less principally to wit as it is a Covenant made with Sinners to restrain them from Sin and to bring them unto Faith and Repentance The primary design of the Gospel-Covenant is indeed to promise gratuitous benefits to Sinners complying with its terms required and it is but its secondary design to threaten punishment in case of non-complyance And then further even this threatning of punishment in respect of its primary design is not to bring the punishment on the Sinner but it is to restrain from Sin and so preserve from Punishment And that the Punishment threatned is actually inflicted upon any who are called and commanded to comply with the terms of the Covenant but do not it comes to pass through their unbelief and impenitence as it were by accident in respect of the primary design of the Evangelical-Covenant as such And that this is true to wit That the Gospel-Covenant hath its
own additional Threatning in the sense aforesaid seems very evident to me 1. Because the conditional promise of the Gospel being made to the Believer exclusively to him and to no other John 3.16 17. John 8.24 it cannot but virtually imply that the Unbeliever shall not have the benefit promised and that is a Threatning 2. Because the Scripture is express in the case for over and besides the Threatning for formerly breaking the Law the Gospel threatens for not sincerely repenting and believing the Gospel John 3.18 He that believeth not is condemned already And why so Why certainly not only because he hath not perfectly kept the Law of Works but likewise as it follows immediately because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God And then in ver 19. our Saviour saith this is the Condemnation that Light is come into the World and Men loved Darkness rather than Light because their deeds were evil See also for this the Commission it self which our Blessed Lord gave to his Apostles and in them to all his Gospel-Ministers who succeed them in preaching the Gospel Mark 16.15 16. Go ye into all the World and preach the Gospel to every Creature He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned From which words it appears 1. That it is the primary design of the Gospel that Men to whom it is Preached should believe and be Baptized and that if they do so they should be saved according to the true import of the Conditional Promise But 2. If they neglect or refuse to believe and by believing to use the Saving Remedy offered them in the Gospel against the Curse and Condemnation of the Law they shall be damned And this is the secondary design of the Gospel to threaten Men with Condemnation if they believe not that the threatning may be a means to deter them from the Sin of Unbelief and to preserve them from being damned According to this Gospel Men to whom it hath been Preached will be judged at the last day As it is written Rom. 2.16 God shall judge the Secrets of Men by Jesus Christ according to my Gospel Now in judging Men who have lived under the Preaching of the Gospel the Lord will justifie the true Penitent Believer and condemn the Unbeliever and that according to the Gospel whence it follows by good consequence that the Gospel hath Threatnings as well as Promises and that as the Believer shall then be justified according to the Promises so the Unbeliever shall be Condemned according to the Threatnings of the Gospel But if the Gospel have neither Precept nor Threatning nor Conditional Promise as Mr. Goodwin affirms that it hath not I do not see how any Unbeliever could be judged and condemned according to the Gospel It cannot with any colour of reason be said that he may be judged according to the absolute Promise of the Gospel For the Absolute Promise of the Gospel was never made to such an Unbeliever as lives and dyes in Unbelief My R. B. will not admit that ever there was any Conditional Promise of the Gospel made to such an Unbeliever and if not a Conditional Promise much less was there ever an Absolute Gospel-Promise made to him If it be objected That though the Believer cannot be both Judged and Justifyed by the Law yet the Unbeliever may be both Judged and Condemned by the Law I answer It is true Every Unbeliever is Judged and Condemned by the Law that he was under and Transgressed But besides that it is true That some Vnbelievers are likewise Judged and Condemned by the Gospel and according to the Gospel And therefore we said in the Apology pag 200. That professed Christians who live and dye in Impenitence and Unbelief will be doubly condemned both by Law and Gospel By the Law for breaking it And by the Gospel for not believing in Christ and not using and applying by Faith the Remedy offered them in the Gospel against the Condemnation of the Law The same saith the Reverend Learned and Judicious Hutcheson on John on the 18th verse of the Third of John these are his words Christ goeth on to Clear and Illustrate the Certainty of the Salvation of Believers in him by shewing on the contrary the Condemnation of Unbelievers whom he declareth to be under a double Condemnation one by the Law and another by the Gospel And a little after albeit the Sentence of the Law be sufficient to Condemn Mankind and will Condemn all them who have not heard of Christ yet under the Gospel Unbelief and not receiving of Christ is the great Condemning Sin for as no Sin will condemn the Man who fleeth to Christ the Remedy so when the Remedy is not Embraced the Sentence of the Law is Ratified in the Gospel and Court of Mercy For he that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed The Sentence is declared Just and confirmed by a new Sentence since he will not take help And thus Unbelief is the great unpardonable Sin Mark 16.16 Whereas other Sins that against the Holy Ghost excepted because it is joyned with final Impenitence would be pardoned if Men would believe And on ver 19. Doct. 5. Where Christ offering himself in the Gospel is not received in Love but contemned it bringeth sadder Condemnation than the breaking of the Law as being a sinning against the Remedy and that with an high hand an undervaluing of him and doing of what they can to make void his pains For this is the Condemnation that Light hath come c. Thus Mr. Hutcheson on John 3.18 19. agrees with us That Unbelievers shall be Judged and condemned by the Gospel And it is something strange that a Minister of the Gospel should be at this day so far under the power of Unbelief as to doubt of or deny this since Christ himself saith expresly John 12.48 That the word which he hath spoken shall judge the Unbeliever in the last day And from the Context it appears that the said Word which shall judge the Unbeliever is the Word of the Gospel For it is the Word which Christ Preached and which the Unbeliever received not And I think that is the Word of the Gospel Nor am I singular in so thinking For Calvin was of the same mind as is evident from what he writes in his Commentary on John 12.48 Non potuit magis splendido elogio extolli Evangelii authoritas quàm dum illi judicii potestas defertur conscendet quidem ipse Christus Tribunal sed sententiam ex verbo quod nunc praedicatur laturum se asserit That is The Authority of the Gospel could not be more highly praised nor a more glorious Elogy given unto it than in ascribing to it the Power of judging Men. Christ himself shall indeed ascend the Judgment Seat but he affirms that he will pass the Sentence according to the Word which is now Preached The
Divines of the Westminster Assembly follow Calvin for thus they write in their Annotations on John 12.48 The word that I have spoken The Doctrine of Christ the Gospel which the Wicked now so securely Contemn shall once rise in Judgment against them and Condemn them See Mark 16.16 John 3.18 by so much the more heavily by how much greater means of Salvation they have neglected And Hutcheson follows the Assembly Men for thus he writes on John 12. ver 48. Doctr. 7. Albeit in the day of Judgment Wicked Men will be called to account for all their Sins against the Law yet their Contempt of the Gospel will be their saddest ditty For he that rejecteth me the word that I have spoken shall judge him That is The word of the Gospel Many other places of Holy Scripture evince this Truth that even the Gospel hath its Threatnings But I forbear to add any more in this place because I must speak to this matter again in my Animadversions on his next Chapter Thirdly and Lastly What Mr. G saith in pag. 40. that in Psal 19.8 9. and Rom 3 27. the Gospel is called a Law and what he there alledgeth to prove that it is so called not because it is a Doctrine of Works but a Doctrine of pure Grace doth really prove no more than that it is not a Law of Works by and for which a Man is justified and saved but only that it is a Law of Grace as I hold it to be Yet from its being only a Doctrine and Law of Grace to infer that it requires no Duty of us at all is plainly contrary to the words and meaning both of holy David and Paul For even in that 19th Psa●m the Law of the Lord. which Mr. Goodwin affirms to be the Gospel is by David expresly said to be the Commandment of the Lord. ver 8. And dare Mr. Goodwin say That the Commandment of the Lord doth not command any thing at all See Disc p. 9.10 nor lay any obligation to Duty upon his Conscience If he dare say so he is such a Man as it is not fit for me to have any thing more to do with but I ought to leave him to dispute that matter with the Lord God himself And as for blessed Paul did not he say to the Goaler Acts 16.31 Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 believe is of the Imperative Mood and therefore I hope it will not be denyed but that here is a command to believe on Christ Now I demand whether this was not pure Gospel If it was as I hope no Christian will deny and I am sure Mr. Goodwins Friend the accuser of the Brethren and informer Mr. Trail cannot honestly and fairly deny then I demand further Whether the Gospel doth not require and command Faith in Christ And if the Gospel require and command Faith in Christ then the Law of Faith which by Mr. Goodwins own confession signifies the Doctrine of the Gospel is a Law of Grace that requires and commands Duty to wit the Duty of Faith and not such a Doctrine of Grace as requires nothing at all That it is a Doctrine of Grace I never denyed in all my Life but this consequence I do utterly deny that because the Law of Faith is a Doctrine of Grace therefore it doth not require nor command Faith in Christ in order to Justification And I am not alone in this There are many others of good esteem in the Church for Orthodoxy who grant with me That Law of Faith signifies a Doctrine and yet maintain as I do that that same Doctrine prescribes and commands Faith in order to Justification At present I give three instances of this As 1 The Dutch Annotations on Rom 3.27 By the Law of Faith that is the prescript or the doctrine of Faith c By which words they declare that the Law of Faith is at once a Doctrine of Faith and a Prescript of Faith And who is so weak as not to know that for the Gospel to proscribe Faith to us is all one as to require and command it 2. The Assemblies Annotations on Rom. 3.27 Law of Faith that is the Precept or Doctrine of Faith which according to the Hebrew manner of speaking is called a Law Isa 2.3 or by that new order or Covenant of God which doth strip Man of all Worth and Righteousness of his own and cloath him by Grace with that of Christ 3. The last Annotations commonly called by the name of Pool on Rom. 3.27 Nay but by the law of faith i. e. The Gospel law which requires faith by which the Righteousness of Christ is imputed to us and attained by us c. Thus the Reverend and Learned Authors of the several Annotations aforesaid do all acknowledge the Law of Faith to be a Doctrine of Faith and yet maintain that it prescribes commands and requires Faith in Christ in order to Justification By this we may see that these Protestant Divines wanted Mr. G. to tutour them and to teach them that a Doctrine of Grace hath no Precept and requires no Duty But because we shall hereafter meet again with this Logick That the Gospel is a Doctrine of Grace therefore it hath no Precept of its own and requires no Duty I will say no more of it here but pass to the next Chapter Animadversions on the Seventh Chapter SECTION I. 1. THis Chapter begins with a manifest Falshood to wit That my Arguments and Citations are all established meerly upon the ambiguities of the word Law The contradictory of that false Proposition is true That not one of my Arguments and Citations is established meerly upon the ambiguities of the word Law 2. He insinuates that I endeavour to prove the Gospel to be a Rule of Duty fortified with a sanction because we find it to be named a Law both in the Scriptures and Humane Writings This Assertion is as false as the former and the contrary is rather true that I endeavour to prove the Gospel to be a Law See Dr. Owen on Heb. 8.6 pag. 221. because I find it is in effect said to be a Rule of Duty fortified with a Sanction both in the Scriptures and Humane Writings And yet even this of the Gospels being said to be a Rule of Duty fortified with a Sanction must be rightly understood for I never said wrote nor thought that the Gospel is a Rule of Duty by and for which Duty we are justified and saved Or that it is fortified with a Sanction promising Justification or Salvation for the performance of our Duty I hold the contradictory of this to be true to wit The Gospel is not a Rule of Duty in such a sense nor fortified with such a Sanction The preceptive part of the Gospel-Covenant is indeed a Rule of Duty but in order to quite other ends than to be justified or saved for the sake of that Duty performed It is also
and since the Fall and before and since the Coming of Christ Now if the Enacting of any New Law doth by good consequence infer the Imperfection of the Moral Natural Law together with the Imperfection of God and the want of Wisdom in God the Law-give● then it follows also by good and necessary consequence that in truth the Moral Law is not perfect nor is God Infinitely Wise and so he is not God at all because he hath certainly Enacted many positive New Laws and these positive Now Laws argue as is pretended that his former Moral Natural Law was not perfect nor himself Wise enough to give so perfect a Law at first as should answer all Emergent Cases and prevent the need of any New Law By this consideration it manifestly appears that some Men oppose the Gospels being a New Law of Grace upon such a Principle as by necessary consequence ●●ns them into Blasphemy and Atheisme and that their Argument against any New Positive Law taken from the Perfection of the Moral Natural Law and from the Infinite Wisdom of God cannot be good because it is against plain Matter of Fact and attempts to prove that which cannot po●●ibly be proved to wit That God hath never since the first Creation Enacted for Men any New Po●●tive Law which yet he hath certainly done if there be any Truth in the Scriptures either of the Old or New Testament Yea this Argument bears so high as to make a shew of proving that God cannot do what he hath certainly done and if he hath done what he hath done then he is not what he is and what he is said to be to wit Infinitely Perfect and Wise 7. Consider Seventhly That a Duty or Act of ours which as to the Matter or Substance of it so to speak is one and the same may yet have several Habitudes and Relations and may fall under several formal Notions and Considerations and by reason of those different Habitudes and Notions may so far differ from it self as to fall under Two different Laws whereof the One is Moral Natural and the other is Moral Positive And under one formal No●ion and in one respect it may be required of us by a Moral Natural Law and under another Formal Notion and in another respect it may be required of us by a Moral Positive Law For instance By one and the same Faith considered materially and as to the substance of it so to speak 1 Tim. 2.5 we believe in God and in the Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Jesus who is God also Yet there being here Two different Objects to wit 1. God considered simply as God 2. The Mediator between God and Men Christ Jesus considered now as God Man and the one being the Ultimate Terminative Object and the other the Intermediate Object of our Faith through which it is carryed unto God as its ultimately Terminative Object 1 Pet. 3.18 John 14.1 2 Cor. 3.4 and 1 Pet. 1.21 I say there being here two such different Objects our Faith as conversant about these Two Objects must needs have different Habitudes and Relations and fall under different formal Notions and Considerations At present I shall only instance in this That according to our Protestant Divines Faith as it relates to God simply considered so it is a Moral Vertue or as others a Theological Vertue but as it relates to Christ the Mediator it hath also the Notion of a Moral Instrument or Instrumental Means or Condition whereby we are interested in Christ or whereby we receive apprehend and apply Christ and his Righteousness to our selves and whereby we trust in him and in God through him for Justification and Salvation on the account of his Righteousness only Now the same Faith materially considered having such different Objects and different Habitudes to those Objects and in different respects falling under different formal Notions it must needs by reason of them and as vested with them differ formally from it self though it be materially the same Faith still And then as so differing formally from it self we may very easily conceive it to fall under different Laws Faith in God simply considered falls under the Command of the Moral Natural Law as all confess Faith in Christ the Mediator as formally differing from Faith in God simply considered falls under the Command of the Moral Positive Evangelical Law So our Protestant Divines generally maintain against the Flacian Sectaries Witness Melancthon who in his Apology for the Ausburgh Confession says (a) Fides est Obedientia erga Evangelium Quare fides rectè dicitur justitia Nam Obedientia erga Evangelium imputatur pro justitia adeo ut obedientia erga legem tantùm propterea placeat quia credimus nobis Deum gratis propitium esse propter Christum neque enim legi satisfacimus Quanquam autem haec fides est in voluntate est enim velle accipere promissionem tamen haec Obedientia erga Evangelium non propter nostram munditiem imputatur pro justitiâ sed quia accipit oblatam misericordiam Melancth Apolog. pro Aug. Confess p. 113. Edit Argentor 1580. Faith is Obedience to the Gospel Wherefore Faith is fitly called Righteousness For Obedience to the Gospel is imputed for Righteousness so that Obedience to the Law therefore only pleaseth because we believe that God is freely propitious to us for Christs sake for we do not satisfie the Law But though this Faith be in the Will for it is to will and to receive the Promise yet this Obedience to the Gospel is not imputed for Righteousness because of our purity but because it receives the Mercy offered Thus Melancthon distinguishes and opposes to one another Obedience to Law and Gospel and affirms Faith to be Obedience to the Gospel as distinguished from the Law And again some Pages after he sayes (b) Idem ibid. p. 116. Evangelium est hoc ipsum mandatum quod jubet credere quod Deus velit ignoscere salvare propter Christum juxta illud Non mifit Deus Filium suum c. quoties igitur de misericordiâ dicitur intelligendum est fidem requiri The Gospel is that very Commandment which bids us believe that God will pardon and save for Christs sake according to that God sent not his Son into the World to condemn c therefore how often there is mention made of Mercy we must understand that Faith is required Again in his common places he sayes (c) Idem in loc com cap. de Poeniten p. 517. Mandatum aeternum immutabile ac longè supra Legem est credere Christo The Command to believe in Christ is eternal and unchangeable and far above the Law Melancthons meaning is plain that the Command to believe in Christ is not a Commandment of the Moral Natural Law for it is far above that Law but it is a Commandment of the positive Evangelical Law which is not Natural but Supernatural
Chemnitius also in his common places not only confesses that the Gospel is called a Law Isa 2.3 Mic. 4.2 and the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 but though he purposely sets himself to please the rigid Lutherans he likewise sayes that (d) Affirmativa de fiducia gratuitae misericordiae propter Christum non est vox Legis sicut Paulus clare dicit Gal. 3.12 Lex non est ex fide c. Chemnit loc com p. 219. The affirmative part concerning the Faith or confident trust of Free Mercy for Christs sake is not the voice of the Law as Paul clearly sayes Gal. 3.12 The law is not of faith Observe here that justifying Faith in Chemnitius's Opinion is not required by the Moral Natural Law but by the Gospel and that because Paul clearly saith that the Law is not of Faith Gal. 3.12 i. e. The Law requires not Faith to Justification See our last Annotations Pools on Gal. 3.12 The Law saith nothing of Faith in the Mediatour though Faith in God be commanded in the first Precept yet Faith in Christ is not commanded in the Law as that by which the Soul shall iive c. Hemmingius a moderate Lutheran and Disciple of Melancthon saith (e) Fidem omnes unanimiter ad Evangelium referunt Tract de gratia salutari Edit Hafniae 1591. loco de poenitentia All Divines unanimously refer Faith in Christ to the Gospel And he had reason to say so for before the Flacians I do not know that ever any Protestant Divine was of that Opinion that it is not the Gospel but the Moral Natural Law which requires Faith in Christ unto Justification and Salvation I am sure Luther was not of that mind for in his Book of Christian Liberty a little before the passage which Mr. Goodwin hath quoted out of it he brings in the very Gospel or God in and by the Gospel speaking unto Men and saying (f) En tibi crede in Christum in quo promittuntur tibi gratia Justitia Pax Libertas omnia si credis habebis si non credis carebis Luther de libert Christ Lo here for thee believe in Christ in whom are promised unto thee Grace Justice Peace Liberty and all If thou believe thou shalt have them if thou believe not thou shalt want them Here it is observable as was said before 1. That Luther speaks of the Gospel as distinguished from and opposed to the Law 2. He says That the Language of the Gospel so considered is crede in Christum c. believe in Christ And if that be not a Command how shall we know that ever there was such a Command in the World 3. Tho. Luther calls the Gospel there Promissa Dei the Promises of God yet it is most evident he did not think them to be all absolute Promises for he expresly mentions a Conditional Promise saying Si credis habebis If thou believest thou shalt have all those benefits that are promised in and through Christ 4. That the Conditional Promise of the Gospel the promise of great Blessings and Benefits made to us on condition that we believe in Christ doth carry in it a Gospel Command to believe in Christ Otherwise it is not imaginable how Luther could make the very Gospel and the Promises of God as opposed to the Law to say unto Man Crede in Christum Believe in Christ for that is a Precept if ever there was a Precept in the Word of God and being a Precept it must according to Luther be implyed in the Conditional Promise of the Gospel Whence we may learn this useful Lesson that in every Conditional Promise of the Gospel there are two things to be considered by us 1. The Promise it self of some gratuitous Benefit 2. The Gospel Command to perform the condition upon which the Benefit is promised The truth of this Observation was well understood by the Learned Dr. Whitaker and therefore he saith (g) Whitak praelect de Sacram. cap 4. Promissio gratiae conditionalis est requirit enim fidem c. The Promise of Grace is Conditional for it requires Faith c. And Dr. Nowell in his foresaid Latine Catechism taught in the Grammar-Schools throughout England speaking of the Gospel as distinct from the Law he saith (h) Verae Religionis partes sunt Obedientia quam Lex imperat fides quam Evangelium requirit A. Nowelli Christianae Pietatis prima Instit pag. 3. Edit Cantab. 1626. The Gospel requires Faith In like manner Sharpius tells us that the Gospel as distinct from the Law requires Faith and declares that the contrary Opinion which Mr. Goodwin has lately taken up is the Error of the Flacians (i) Errant Flaciani qui in Evangelio nullum praeceptum esse volunt cum manifeste praecipiatur ut credamus poenitentiam agamus fides autem est tantùm ex Evangelio ut poenitentia quae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dicitur Sharpii Curs Theolog. Sect. de Evangelio pag. 692. The Flacians saith he err who would have no Precept to be in the Gospel seeing it is manifestly commanded that we should believe and repent But Faith is only from the Gospel as is also that Repentance which in Greek is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 With Sharpius agrees Dickson on Rom. 3.27 28. his words are these Argum. 10. Because by the Law of Faith or the Covenant of Grace which requires Faith to our Justification by the Righteousness of another Mans boasting in himself is excluded and not by the Law of Works or the Covenant of Works which exacts perfect Obedience and affords boasting to Men in their inherent Righteousness Therefore saith he we conclude that a Man is justified by Faith without the Works of the Law Thus Dickson Of the same Judgment was the late Reverend and Learned Mr. Pitcairn Principal of the New Colledge and Rector of the University of S. Andrews For in his Harmony of the Evangelists he writes thus (k) P●●cairn Harmon Evang. p. 274. Quisquis justificatur per Legem Christi hoo est per Evangelicam Christi Legem fidem praescribentem absolvitur Whosoever is justified he is absolved by the Law of Christ that is by the Evangelical Law of Christ which prescribes Faith And as was observed before the Assemblies Confession of Faith in the Seventh Chapter of Gods Covenant with Man Art 3. saith expresly That the Lord in the Covenant of Grace requires of Men Faith in Jesus Christ that they may be saved I might bring many more Testimonies to this purpose but these are sufficient to show that it hath been and is the common belief of our Protestant Divines except some raving bawling Flacians in Germany and the Cocceians in Holland that the Gospel commands and requires us to believe in Jesus Christ for Justification and Salvation The Case then is plainly thus That the Moral Natural Law requires Faith in God simply considered as God and Jesus Christ being God by Nature One God
with the Father and Spirit it requires Faith in him also considered simply under that formal Notion as God But the Law doth not by it self immediately require Faith in Christ the Mediatour as the instrumental means or condition receptive and applicative of him and his Righteousness for Justification It is the Gospel-Covenant which first by it self immediately constitutes and ordains Faith in the Mediatour Christ Jesus to be the instrumental means or condition receptive and applicative of Christ and his Righteousness for Justification and Salvation and which likewise requires it of us as such and under that Notion Now when Faith in the Mediatour is once by the positive Law of Grace or Gospel-Covenant ordained to such an use and required of us for that purpose then I acknowledge that the Moral Natural Law obliges us to observe the positive Evangelical Law of Grace which hath ordained Faith to such an use and required it in order to such an end and so mediante Lege Evangelicâ positivâ by means of the positive Evangelical Law of Grace or new Covenant the Natural Law the Law of our Creation obliges us to believe in Christ the Mediatour to receive him and his Righteousness as aforesaid and to trust to be justified and saved by and for him and his Righteousness only So that justifying Faith in the Mediatour is required of us first directly and immediately by the Gospel Covenant only but secondarily mediately and by consequence it is also required by the Moral Natural Law This to me is very evident For 1. The Natural Moral Law cannot of it self immediately oblige us to believe in Christ the Mediatour unless he be otherwise discovered to us by Supernatural Revelation This I think none will deny for the Apostle saith Rom. 10.14 How shall they believe on him of whom they have not heard It is simply impossible for a Man to believe in Christ the Mediatour before he be revealed to him and he cannot be revealed by the Natural Moral Law without Supernatural Revelation therefore he cannot be obliged to believe in Christ the Mediatour by the Natural Moral Law immediately without a Supernatural Revelation because that just and good Law cannot oblige a Man to a simple and absolute impossibility Man in his Innocency could not be obliged by a Natural Law to believe a Supernatural Object without a Supernatural Revelation 2. The Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour to us doth of it self immediately oblige us to believe It doth not only discover Christ the Object but it doth likewise per se immediatè by it self immediately oblige us to believe the Object revealed so that all Natural Moral Law set aside and abstracting from any such Law the Supernatural Revelation of Christ would by it self immediately oblige us to believe And that 1. Because it is Gods own Supernatural Testimony which of it self hath an immediate Authority over our Conscience and obliges us to believe with a Faith of assent The true formal reason and objective moving cause of our obligation to believe a Mysterious Truth Supernaturally revealed to us is the Divine Testimony it self or the Soveraign Authority of God Supernaturally revealing If any Man say No it is not that but it is only the Natural Moral Law which obliges us to believe the Supernatural Tenimony of God I Answer That such a Man seems to be pecking towards the Socinians and does but discover his ignorance of those matters John says 1 John 5.10 he that believeth not God hath made him a lyar because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son See for this Essen compend dogmat cap. 9. pag. 284. Thes 34. arg 3. 2. The said Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour as God hath given it forth unto Man carries in it and with it a positive Command to believe on Christ This is so clear in Scripture that a Man must be blind that doth not see it if he do but read understand and consider Let Deut. 18.15 16 17 18 19. be consulted and there we shall find a Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour and a Prophetical Promise to send him into the World The people were afraid to converse immediately with God after the dreadful appearance at the giving of the Law in Horeb therefore they desired that Moses would be Mediatour between God and them This motion and desire of the people God approved of v. 16 17. and withal made them a promise by Moses that he would send them the true Mediatour Christ whom Moses in that did but typifie and adumbrate And at the same time by the same Moses God gave a Command to hearken unto Christ when he should come and backed his Command with a Threatning to punish them severely in case they did not hearken unto him Compare this with Acts 3.22 23. and it will evidently appear that here we have a Supernatural Revelation of Christ the Mediatour which contains in it a plain Command to hear him in all things and that hearing him in all things includes believing on him John 8.24 and 14.1 and the Command is enforced with a dreadful Threatning against every Soul which will not hear him and believe on him Now doth not this Supernatural Revelation by vertue of the Command included in it immediately oblige us to believe on Christ for Justification and Salvation Surely none but an Unbeliever can deny this And it not only doth oblige us but it would oblige us suppose that which is impossible that there were no Natural Moral Law in the World We have then a positive Law which immediately obliges our Conscience to believe in Christ the Mediatour besides the Natural Moral Law And thus was this matter understood above Twelve Hundred Years ago Witness that of Lactantius (l) Ipse Moses per quem sibi datam legem dum pertinaciter tuentur Judaei exciderunt a Deo Deum non Agnoverunt praedixerat fore ut Propheta maximus mittatur a Deo qui sit supra Legem qui voluntatem Dei ad homines perferat In Deuteronomio ità scriptum reliquit dixit Dominus ad me Prophetam excitabo eis de Fratribus corum sicut te dabo verbum meum in os ejus Et loquetur ad cos ea quae praecepero ei quisquis non audierit ea quae loquetur Propheta ille in nomine meo ego vindicabo in eum Denunciavit scilicet Deus per ipsum legiferum quòd Filium suum id est vivam praesentemque legem missurus esset illam veterem per mortalem datam soluturus ut Deus per eum qui esset aeternus legem sanciret aeternam Lactant. Divin Instit lib. 4. Cap. 17. Moses himself by whom the Law was given and which the Jews obstinately defending are fallen from God and have lost the knowledge of God foretold that it should come to pass that God would send a most Great Prophet who should be above the Law and should bring the Notice
with Water in the Name of Father Son and Holy Ghost and to Eat and Drink the Blessed Bread and Wine in remembrance of Christ's Death till he come To this I shall subjoyn the Testimony of the Late Reverend and Learned Dr. Owen and then pass on From Deut. 18. ver 18 19. he infers that Christ was to be a Law giver His words are (n) Dr. Owens 1st Vol. on the Epist to the Hebrews exercitat 17. pag. 224. The Prophet here foretold was to be like unto him Moses wherein he was peculiar and exempted from comparison with all other Prophets which were to build on his Foundation without adding any thing to the Rule of Faith and Worship which he had Revealed or changing any thing therein In that is the Prophet here promised to be like unto him that is he was to be a Law-giver to the House of God as our Apostle proves and declares Chap. 3. ver 1 2 3 4 5. Moses was the great Law giver by whom God revealed his Mind and Will as to his whole Worship whilst the Church-State Instituted by him was to continue Such a Prophet was the Messias to be a Law-giver so as to Abolish the Old and to Institute New Rites of Worship This raising up of a Prophet like unto Moses declares That the Whole Will of God as to his Worship and the Churches Obedience was not yet Revealed Had it so been there would have been no need of a Prophet like unto Moses to lay New Foundations as he had done Thus the Doctor Now as I have distinguished of Faith so I distinguish of Repentance As there is a Faith in God which most certainly is commanded by the Natural Moral Law it self immediately so there is a Repentance towards God which is also Commanded by the Natural Moral Law it self immediately This I never denyed but always believed and in our Apology pag. 200. we plainly enough professed this our belief in these words Heathens who never heard nor could hear of the Gospel for want of an Objective Revelation of it they living and dying without Repentance and Faith in the True God under the guilt of Sins against the Law and Light of Nature will be Condemned by the Law but not by the Gospel which they could not know Rom 2.12 These words plainly show that our Judgment is That Heathens are guilty of Sins against the Law and Light of Nature in that they do not believe in the True God nor repent of their Sins although they have not the Gospel and so no Gospel-Promise to assure them of Pardon and that they shall be Condemned by the Law of Nature for their Unbelief and Impenitency against the Law of Nature together with their other Sins against the same Law And from this it appears That a great part of my Reverend Brothers Seventh Chapter is altogether Impertinent and that I am not at all concerned in it Mr. Goodwin here fights against a Man of Straw of his own making and setting up and valiantly runs him down again and I do not in the least envy him the Glory of such a Victory But though the Natural Moral Law doth oblige all Mankind of ripe years to a Natural Legal Repentance that is 1. To be heartily sorry for having offended God their Creator and Preserver by breaking his Law which they are under and outwardly also to express the inward sorrow of their Hearts 2 To hate their Sin as a great Evil in it self and the procuring Cause of Evil unto Men. 3. Not to act their Sin over again but to abstain from Sin and to keep God's Natural Moral Law for the future Yet there is another kind of Repentance which the Natural Moral Law doth not by it self immediately oblige all Mankind unto in all parts of the World and that is an Evangelical Repentance which ariseth from an apprehension and perswasion of God's Mercy in Christ to all such as are truely Penitent and to our selves if we do or shall truely Repent This is a Repentance towards God considered not meerly as our Creator Preserver and Ruler but as in Christ reconciling the World unto himself and as Ruling Graciously and Mercifully by Christ So that it hath a formal Object different from that of the other Natural Legal Repentance and it hath likewise a different Habitude and Relation unto God and is carryed out unto him after a different manner which is sufficient to give it another Form and to make it formally to differ from the foresaid Natural Legal Repentance Moreover it hath another Office and Use assigned to it for it is constituted and Ordained by God through Christ to be a Condition Dispositive of the Subject to be pardoned or a means to prepare and qualifie us for Receiving the Pardon of our Sins by Faith in Christ's Blood and for his Righteousness only apprehended applyed and trusted to by Faith Now such a Repentance as this a True Evangelical Repentance considered under this formal notion as arising from the foresaid perswasion of Gods Mercy in Christ to the truely Penitent and as a Condition or Means to dispose and prepare for pardon and as having pardon ensured to it by Promise through Christ I say Repentance of this kind and considered under this Notion is Commanded and Required by the Gospel-Law or Covenant firstly directly and immediately and then by the Natural Moral Law mediately and by consequence As the Gospel Commands us to believe that God is upon terms of Saving Pardoning Mercy to the truely Penitent so the Gospel or God by the Gospel makes True Repentance to be one of the Terms to be a Condition or Means to dispose and qualifie us for pardoning Mercy and makes Pardon sure to us by Promise through Christ upon our Repentance As also It is the Gospel and God by Gospel that requires the said dispositive Condition that Commands us to Repent that we may certainly obtain the Promised Pardon through Faith in Christ's Blood That God by the Gospel Commands us to Repent in order to obtain the Pardon of our Sins is as Clear as the Light at Noon to all that are not blind through Unbelief For doth not the Evangelical Prophet say Isai 55.7 Let the Wicked forsake his Way and the Vnrighteous Man his Thoughts and let him Return unto the Lord and he will have Mercy upon him and to our God for he will abundantly Pardon Or He will multiply to Pardon It cannot be said That this is the Voice of the first Covenant and Law of Works For that Covenant is so far from requiring Repentance as a means to obtain Pardon of Sin that it doth not so much as admit of Repentance as any means to such an end as we shall hear by and by from Mr. Caryll And if it be not the Voice of the Old Covenant and Law of Works it must be the Voice of the New Covenant and Law of Grace for there is no Medium no Third that can have any place here
Gospel requires Repentance of us in order to pardon of Sin seems to be like those of whom Lactantius of old in the Seventh Book and First Chapter of his Institutions said that they will not believe our Doctrine Nec si Solem quidem ipsum gestemus in manibus No not though we carry before them even the Sun it self in our hands that is though we bring them the clearest evidence imaginable Matth. 11.19 But however it be with such persons yet Wisdom is and will be justified of her Children As for Luther since he approved and subscribed the Ausburgh Confession we may from it take an estimate of his Judgment And besides that Chemnicius in his common places page 219 220. shews out of Luthers first Disputation against the Antinomians That he also held that Repentance taken intirely in its essential perfection is required by the Gospel I wish Luther had been something more accurate in the handling of that matter but as it is it sufficeth to show that he was far from thinking that Evangelical Repentance is required by the Natural Moral Law only and not at all by the Gospel and that on the contrary he believed that Evangelical Repentance as Evangelical is from the Gospel and not from the Law And so the Lutherans generally except the Flacians if there be yet any of that Sect remaining in Germany maintain that Evangelical Repentance as Evangelical is required by the Gospel And I wonder not at all to find them unanimous in this so far as I am acquainted with their Writings because after Melancthon they hold Faith to be an essential part yea to be the essentiating form of Evangelical Repentance I am not indeed of their mind in this yet I think it is a truth that though Faith be not the very essential form it self of Evangelical Repentance yet it contributes much towards the giving its specifical form and the making it truly Evangelical and without Faith it would not be Evangelical Calvin and his Followers differ from the Lutherans in this That they make not Faith to be an Essential part of Repentance but hold them to be Two distinct Graces co-existent and influential the one upon the other And that Calvin believed as we do That the Gospel requires of us Evangelical Repentance in order to Pardon of Sin I plainly proved from his Writings which are quoted in the Apology p. 92 93. If any should object that Calvin on Rom. 10. ver 8. writes thus (t) Colligimus sicut lex opera exiglt Evangelium nihil aliud postulare nisi ut fidem afferant homines ad recipiendam Dei gratiam Calvin Comment in Rom. 10.8 We gather That as the Law requires Works to wit unto Justification so the Gospel requires nothing but that Men bring Faith to receive the Grace of God I Answer That this makes altogether for us For 1. Here Calvin says expresly That the Gospel requires Faith then he did not believe it to be such a Doctrine of Grace as requires nothing of us at all 2. Calvin here saith That the Gospel requires nothing but Faith to receive the Grace of God And so we say the very same thing For we have told the World in our Apology That Faith is the only receptive Condition of Justification that is it is the only thing which the Gospel requires as the Instrumental Means or Condition whereby we Apprehend Receive and Apply Christ and his Righteousness to our own Souls for our Justification As for Repentance it is not of that Nature it is not naturally sitted for nor is it by God appointed and ordained to that use and Office in the matter of Justification but it is only fitted for and ordained unto this Use and Office to be the Means or Condition dispositive of the subject man which is to be pardoned and Justifyed And this Calvin does not here deny and we have proved that elsewhere he affirms and maintains it as we do As for the Followers of Calvin I might be large in showing that generally they except a few Cocceians hold that the Gospel-Covenant requires Evangelical Repentance in order to Pardon of Sin but I will content my self at present with a few clear irrefragable Testimonies Having mentioned Zanchy and Sharpius before I pass them and begin with Vrsin and Pareus whose words are these It was said in the definition of the Gospel and in the third difference between the Law and the Gospel that the Gospel requireth both Faith and Repentance or New Obedience and so is the Preaching both of Remission of Sins and of Repentance Against this Flacian Sectaries keep a stir and reason after this sort Obj. There is no Precept or Command belonging to the Gospel but to the Law The Preaching of Repentance is a Precept or Commandment Therefore the Preaching of Repentance belongeth not to the Gospel but to the Law Answer We deny the Major if it be generally meant For this Precept is proper unto the Gospel Zacharias Ursinus his Sum of Christian Religion Enlarged By Pareus in Latine and Translated into English and Printed at London An 1645. pag. 131. that it commandeth us to believe it to embrace the benefit of Christ and now being justifyed to begin New Obedience or that Righteousness which the Law requireth of us Repl. Yea but the Law also willeth us to believe God Therefore it is not proper unto the Gospel to Command us to believe Answer Both the Law and the Gospel commandeth Faith and Conversion to God but diversly c. Thus Vrsin and Pareus tell us plainly what their Judgment was and by Consequence what the Judgment of the Old Calvinists was in Germany for this their large Catechisme was generally received and Taught in Schools of the Reformed both in Germany and elsewhere as in Scotland c. Another Instance of this Nature we have in Wendelin a zealous Calvinist who in his Systema majus lib. 1. cap. 19. Thes 7. writeth thus (u) Mandatum amplectendi Mediatorem cum side etiam conjungit resipiscentiam Secundum illud Johannis Baptistae Marc. 1.15 resipiscite credite Evangelio Sic ipse Deus de Coelo mediatorem patefacit verâ fide amplecti jubet Matth. 17.5 Hic est Filius ille meus dilectus in quo acquiesco ipsum audite Hanc resipiscentiam quatenus Salutaris ad Deum conversio est hoc est Sanctificatio inchoata vel continuata ad Evangelium pertinere patet Quod 4. Argumentis probat M. Frid. Wendelin Christ Theolog. System Maj. lib. 1. cap. 19. Thes 7. pag. 754 755. The Command to receive and embrace the Mediator joins Repentance also with Faith according to that of John the Baptist Mark 1.15 Repent and believe the Gospel So God himself from Heaven reveals the Mediator and Commands to embrace him with a True Faith Matth. 17.5 This is my Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased Hear ye him This Repentance as it is a saving Conversion unto God that is
Sanctification begun or continued evidently belongs to the Gospel Which he there proves by Four Arguments The same Learned Authour a little before in the same Book page 750 751. by distinguishing the several Senses in which the Word Gospel is taken answers all that Mr. Goodwin hath written in his whole Book only he did not think that any Body but a Flacian Sectary would be so absurd as to say that the Gospel strictly and properly taken is a Doctrine of Grace that requires nothing of us at all and therefore he affirms that the Gospel strictly taken requires Faith and that Evangelium quocunque modo acceptum habet promissiones conditionales Take the Gospel which way soever one will it hath Conditional Promises This is another of the Systems of Divinity that hath been used in the Schools of the Reformed and even by the Presbyterians in Scotland But we will leave the Germans and come to our own Countrey Men and see what their Judgment hath been of this matter And I will begin with Mr. Caryl whose Judgment I hope will be something regarded by the Brethren He gives it plainly and fully on Job 42.6 last Vol. in Quarto pag. 842 where that Evangelical Repentance as a means of obtaining Pardon and Life is not required by the Law but by the Gospel he proves 1. By Scripture Matth. 3.2 11. and 4.17 and Mark 6.12 Acts 2.38 Acts 20.21 2. He says It is through the Gospel only that Repentance is possible and this appears two ways 1. Because we have not a liberty to repent or we are not admitted to repent but by the Gospel we find no place for Repentance in the Law strictly taken or as opposed to the Gospel The Law speaks thus Cursed is every one that continueth not c. Gal. 3.10 Where we see 1. The Law requires Personal Obedience every one must do for himself 2. The Law requires perpetual Obedience every one that continueth not doing 3. The Law requires Universal Obedience every one that continueth not in all things The Law doth not say If a Man continue not to do all let him repent that admits no second Thoughts but claps the Curse presently upon the Offender If Adam as soon as he had eaten of the forbidden Tree had bewailed his Sin and said I repent no Favour could have been shewed him while under the Law c. Thus the Reverend Mr. Caryl whereby it plainly appears that he believed the Law by it self immediately doth not oblige us to Repentance as it is a means by God's Ordination disposing us to obtain Pardon of Sin and acceptance with God through Faith in Christ for he plainly says That the Law doth not admit us to repent in order to such an end And then surely it doth not Command us to repent in order to such an end On the other hand he proves by Scripture that the Gospel Commands us to Repent in order to the foresaid end And therefore he is plainly on our side against my Reverend Brother So are the Reverend Authours of the Assemblyes Annotations Annotation on Mark 1.15 Repent ye Faith and Repentance say they are the sum of the Gospel The same Annotators in their Annotation on Acts 17.30 But now he Commandeth all Men every where to repent they say now he causeth the Gospel to be preached to all Nations to draw them from their horrible Sins And now if they refuse to do the known Will of their Master they must expect more severe Judgments Hence it is manifest that in the Judgment of those Divines the Command to repent in order to obtain Pardon of Sin is a part of the Gospel otherwise their Annotation had been impertinent yea it had been a wresting of Holy Scripture and a perverting of the true meaning of the Text which they designed to explain But some may demand whether our Protestant Divines use to say that True Repentance is a Condition required of us as necessary yea and as antecedently necessary in order of Nature to the obtaining Pardon of Sin I Answer Yea they do use to say so and some of them prove it too Witness the same Assemblies Annotations on Mark 1. ver 4. John did Preach the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins On these words they have this Note Repentance is not the Cause but the Inseparable Condition of Sins Remission And on Acts 5.31 where Christ is said to give Repentance c. their Note is This Christ giveth by the Spirit of Regeneration and hereunto is Remission of Sins most certainly annexed And Pool's Annotations on Christ's words Matth. 9.13 but I am come to call Sinners to Repentance They have this Note but sensible Sinners to Repentance First to Repentance then to the receiving Remission of Sins c Witness also 2. Dr Rivet and Mr. Anthony Burgess both at once For thus Burgess quotes Rivet with approbation We have other Orthodox Writers speaking more consonantly to Truth denying that future Sins are forgiven Burgesses's True Doctrine of Justification Asserted c. in 30. Lectures pag. 244. before committed and repented of When Grotius had objected that the Protestants Doctrine was Peccata condonari antequam fiant That Sins were forgiven before they were Committed Rivet in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 467. replyeth Imo id nos absurdissimum credimus c. Yea We think such a Doctrine most absurd and the imputation of it to us most unjust Those that know God hath Decreed from Eternity to pardon Sin upon the Condition of Repentance those that know God hath not decreed the End without the Means will never ascribe to themselves Pardon of Sin without these exercises of Repentance Mr. Burgess goes on with Rivet and saith Thus the same Authour in the same Book pag. 533. Absurdum est credere c. It is absurd saith he to believe a Remission of Sins which are not yet committed for neither in the Decree of God is there an actual Remission Decreed without Repentance preceding Remission Again The same Burgess in the same Book pag. 270. gives us his own Judgment by it self in these following words There is in Scripture a two-fold Repentance or Humiliation for Sin the one antecedent and going before Pardon and this the Scripture requireth as a necessary Condition without which Forgiveness of Sin cannot be obtained Of this Repentance the Scripture for the most part speaks Ezek 18.30 Matth. 3.2 Mark 6.12 Luke 13.3 Acts 3.19 and generally in most places of Scripture c. By this now it appears that both Rivet and Burgess held that True Repentance is required as a Condition or Means antecedently in order of Nature necessary to the Pardon of Sin Our Third Witness is the Learned Prudent Pious and Peaceable Mr. Durham who in his Commentary on the Revelation hath a large Discourse concerning Repentance where 1. He distinguishes and shews what Repentance it is which he holds to be necessary to pardon of Sin 2. He proves it to be
necessary simply necessary yea and antecedently necessary in order of Nature to the obtaining pardon of Sin His Arguments are distributed into three Classes Some of them prove its necessity others prove its antecedency All together strongly prove that it 's antecedently necessary in order of Nature to the obtaining of Pardon This is to be seen in pag. 249 250. 3. He enquires whether Repentance may be called a Condition as well as Faith And Answers that it may not be called a Condition in the same Sense as Faith is called one For Faith is the only Condition whereby we close with the Covenant and whereby we close with receive and apply Christ and his Righteousness as held forth to us in the Covenant-Promise But then he says That in a large Sense it may be called and it is a Condition necessary with Faith concomitantly in the same subject to qualifie and dispose it in a congruous suitable way to receive Pardon of Sin by Faith in Christ alone This is to be seen in pag. 253 254 255 256. And this is the same thing which we believe and have openly professed to the World in our Apology So that there is not an hairs breadth of difference between his judgment and mine except it be in the wording of it And this manifestly appears from our calling Repentance the Condition or Means which only qualifies and disposes the Subject for receiving Pardon by Faith alone whereas we call Faith the Instrumental Means or Condition whereby we receive and apply the Object to wit the Promise and Christ with his Righteousness as held forth to us in the Promise for Justification and Salvation This is sufficient to show that Mr. Durham is of the same Judgment with us as to this matter and that therefore we justly bring him in to Witness for us I would have quoted his own words but they are so many and would swell my Discourse to such a Bulk that I choose rather to refer the Reader to the Book and Pages where he will see if he be in any doubt that I have faithfully given his Sense in few words Our Fourth Witness shall be the Famous Confession of Faith Composed by the most Learned of the Reformed Divines of Poland Lithuania and the Provinces thereon depending together with Divines from Germany and which they gave in at Torn in the Year 1645 unto the Lutheran and Popish Doctors all Assembled there to Confer about Religion for several Moneths together Their words are these (x) Non controvertitur hîc an ad remissionem peccatorum requiratur conversio mentis ad Deum interna peccatorum dum dolore detestatio asserimuus enim talem poenitentiam ut perpetuam conditionem ad peccatorum remissionem requisitam fuisse in utroque Testamento qua peccator non quidem eam meretur hoc enim efficit solum meritum satisfactio Christi cum eam nobis fide viva applicamus sed per eam praerequisita conditio impletur quâ aptus fit at Divinam misericordiam consequendam Confession Doctrinae Ecclesiarum Reformatarum in Regno Poloniae maguo Ducatu Lithuaniae annexisque Regni Provinciis in Colloquio Thoruniensi exhibit D. 1. Septembris A. D. 1645. Cap. 6. De Sacramentis Sect. De Poenitentiâ 1. It is not Controverted here whether the Conversion of the Mind to God and the inward Detestation of Sins with Sorrow be required unto the Remission of Sins for we assert that as a perpetual Condition unto the Remission of Sins such a Repentance was required under both Testaments whereby a Sinner doth not indeed merit it for the alone Merit and Satisfaction of Christ doth that when we apply it to our selves by a lively Faith but by it the pre-required Condition is performed whereby he is made fit and disposed to obtain the Divine Mercy Thus that Confession of Faith and those many Learned Judicious Divines who drew it up bear witness to the Truth with us That Repentance is pre-required and always was pre-required as a necessary Condition whereby a Sinner is qualified and made meet to receive the Pardon of his Sins by Faith in Christ's Blood I could bring more Testimonies both from the Word of God and the Writings of Holy Sound and Orthodox Ministers of Christ for the Confirmation and Elucidation of this Truth but I have been too large already upon this Point and therefore this may super abundantly suffice to show That though the Natural Moral Law oblige all Mankind in all parts of the World to one sort of Faith and Repentance yet there is another sort of them there is an Evangelical Faith and Repentance unto which the Evangelical Law of the New Covenant doth only by it self immediately oblige us And the Moral Natural Law obliges us to them but mediately only and by consequence in as much as it obliges us to observe all God's Positive Laws which it pleaseth him at any time to Enact for us Consider Eighthly That under the Gospel God hath made sincere Obedience to his Moral Natural Law and to all his Positive Laws which are in Force and not Abrogated one of the Articles of the New Covenant taken in its Latitude He hath made our performance of such sincere Obedience to his Laws a Condition necessary to qualifie and prepare us for obtaining full possession of Eternal Life and Happiness in Heavenly Glory for the sake of Christ and his Meritorious Righteousness only 1. For clearing of this It is to be observed that in the first federal Law of Works given and prescribed unto Man before the Fall there are Three things to be distinguished 1. There is the preceptive part of it 2. The Minatory Sanction 3. The Promissory Sanction 1. There is the Preceptive part which obligeth to Duty and except the Positive Precepts of Sanctisying or keeping Holy to God the Seventh day precisely in order from the Creation and of not eating the Forbidden Fruit All the rest of the Preceptive part of that Law of Works is in force still and obliges Mankind to an Ever Sinless Obedience de futuro 2. There is the Minatory Sanction or Threatning which binds over Transgressors to suffer the Punishment threatned And this is still in force with respect to all Impenttent Unbelievers They are all whil'st they continue in that State under the Curse of the first broken Law and Covenant and are lyable to a further degree of the same Punishment for every Sin which they shall commit in this World Yet by the Gospel there is a Door of Hope to get out of this State opened through Christ unto those to whom God sends it 3. There is the Promissory Sanction or the Promise of Life unto those who keep the Precepts without any Sin whatsoever Now this is not in force since the fall so as that any Man should be obliged ex intentione Dei to believe or hope that he shall obtain Eternal Life by his keeping the Preceptive part of the first Covenant or
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 Deut● 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 Massachuse●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
indisciplinatis condignam tradens Legem liberis autem side justificatis congruentia dans Praecepta Filiis adaperiens suam haereditatem Iren. advers haeres lib 4. c. 21. The Lord is the Master of the Family who rules all his Fathers house giving indeed to the Servants and those who are yet undisciplined a Law fit for them but to them who are free and justified by Faith he gives suitable Precepts and to the Children makes known their Inheritance Here Irenaeus distinguishes between the unconverted and the Law they are under on the one hand and the converted justified and adopted and the Precepts they are under on the other And gives to understand that the unconverted are yet under the Law of Works which rigorously exacts Duty and Service of them and condemns them for every Sin they commit but that the converted justified and adopted are not under the rigorous exaction and condemning power of the Law of Works but they are under the Law of Grace they are actually in a Covenant of Reconciliation with God which doth indeed prescribe Duty to them but not to be justified by and for their Duties of Obedience for they are justified by Faith in Christ but to be the way for them to walk in and the means to qualifie and prepare them for the possession of the Inheritance which by their Justification and Adoption they have a right unto and which in the way of holy Obedience to the Preceptive part of the Covenant he assures them of by the Promises of the Gospel That this is his meaning appears from his words aforesaid and from what follows in the same Chapter concerning the two Covenants Or his words may refer to the Jews and their Law on the one hand and to the Christians with their New Law of Grace on the other Again in another Chapter of the same Book he writes thus (f) Consummatae Vitae Praecepta in utroque Testamento cum sunt eadem eundem ostenderunt Deum qui particularia quidem Pracepta apta utrisque Proeceptis sed eminentiora summa sine quibus salvari non potest in utroque eadem suasit Iren. advers haereses lib. 4. cap. 22. Seeing the Precepts of a perfect Life are the same in both Testaments they show that the same God is the Author of both the Testaments who hath indeed prescribed particular Precepts suitable to both the Covenants but the more eminent and principal Precepts without which a Man cannot be saved are the same in both Testaments or Covenants Here are several things to be observed for understanding this passage of Irenaeus which though in the Translation which we have it be not elegantly expressed yet it bears a good and useful sense 1. Then observe That according to Irenaeus the Precepts of the Moral Natural Law are common to both Covenants the Old and the New 2. That he calls the two Testaments or Covenants Precepts and therefore I translate particularia praecepta apta utrisque Praeceptis particular Precepts suitable to both the Covenants and to translate them otherwise would render them unintelligible Now there can be no Reason given why he calls the two Covenants Precepts but because they both have Precepts and require Duties 3. Observe that he sayes God prescribed particular Precepts suitable to both Covenants and these can be no other than Gods positive Laws which pertained to the Legal Administration of the Covenant and are now abrogated and the positive institutions of the Gospel which pertain to the Evangelical Administration of the Covenant and are now in force Observe 4. that according to him without the observance of the more eminent and principal Precepts that is the Precepts of Faith and Repentance and of the Moral Natural Law a Man cannot be saved 〈◊〉 Which is true of Men at age for according to their Time and Talents after their Conversion and Justification it is necessary that they perform sincere Obedience to the Moral Law in order to their obtaining possession of Eternal Salvation For without holiness no man shall see the Lord Heb. 12.14 Hence in another Chapter of the same Book he says (g) Non indigebat Deus dilectione Hominis deerat autem Homini Gloria Dei quam nullo modo poterat percipere nisi per eam obsequentiam quae est erga Deum Idem ibid. lib. 4. cap. 31. God needed not Mans love but Man wanted the Glory which is from God which he could no way attain unto but by that Obedience which is towards God He means that Man cannot obtain Eternal Glory in Heaven but by Obedience Evangelical not as the procuring meriting cause of Glory but only as the means to be used on our part and the condition to be performed by us to qualifie us for Glory to be given us according to promise freely for Christs sake and as a testimony of our gratitude to God in Christ for our Redemption and Salvation See lib. 3. c. 20. This is manifest from what he writes in the 28th Chapter of the same 4th Book and in the 47th Chapter where he says expresly that the (h) Mors Domini est Salvatio eorum qui credunt in eum Iren. lib. 4. cap. 47. Lords Death is the Salvation of those that believe in him and yet both there and elsewhere he maintains that we are obliged to observe the Precepts of Christ in the Gospel in order to our obtaining Life and Salvation Yea in the 27th Chapter of that Book he says that now under the Gospel Covenant (i) Necesse fuit superextendi decreta libertatis augeri subjectionem quae est erg● regem ut non retrorsus quis renitens indignus appareat ei qui se liberaverit Iren. l. 4. c. 27. It was necessary that the Decrees or Statutes of Liberty i. e. which appertain to the Doctrine of Grace and Redemption should be superextended i. e. should be enlarged above what they were before and that the subjection which is to the King should be increased that Man by resisting and drawing baok may not be found unworthy of and unthankful to him who redeemed him In a word Irenaeus goes further in this matter of the Gospels having Precepts that require Duty than I am willing to follow him so certain it is that he held that the Gospel hath Precepts which require Duties and that it is not a meer absolute promise or bare narrative that requires nothing of us at all I do not think that in Irenoeus time there can any be found that were of this absurd Opinion except the vile Gnosticks whose practice was very agreeable to such a Principle that the Gospel requires no Duty and for the Law it can do a Man no hurt if he be once a true Believer how loosely soever he live as Libertines think My third Witness is Cyprian who says (k) Vt de co ad vitalia Praecepta instrui possent discerent quae docerent per Orbem vsro
of our obedience But all this is the proper office of the Moral Law which it compleatly discharges without any asistance I Answer 1. It is not true that the Moral natural Law without the assistance of any positive Law doth by it self immediately instruct us in and oblige us to all the particulars of our Duty For as at the first Creation when the Moral natural Law was perfectly and clearly written in Man's heart it did not by it self immediately in the first instant after his Creation oblige him not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge till God had given him another positive Law and Precept not to Eat of it and then by means of the positive Law the Moral natural Law obliged him not to eat of it So now the same Moral Law would never by it self immediately oblige us to several duties if there were not a positive Law and Precept of Christ which did first make them to be duties and oblige us to the doing of them Of this sort is Baptism with water in the Name of Father Son and Holy-Ghost The Moral Natural Law would never by it self immediately oblige men to be so Baptized if the Lord Christ as King and Head of his Church had not by a new Act of his Royal Authority made a positive Law and given a positive Precept obliging men to be baptized as aforesaid which being done the moral natural Law doth also oblige us to be baptized but it is only mediately and by consequence It is mediante lege positiva sed non perse immediate So it is the Gospel-Law or Covenant of Grace which by it self immediately obliges us to Justifying Faith and Evangelical Repentance in the Sense before-mentioned and proved and then the moral natural Law does also mediately and by necessary consequence oblige us to the same Duties 2. I answer That since the making of the Gospel-Covenant with fallen man the moral natural Law hath so belonged to it that the requiring sincere Obedience to the moral Law hath been one Article of the Gospel-Covenant The said moral Law then not only as separated from the Gospel covenant but even as included in it in the sense before explained doth instruct us what to do draw the Lines of our Duty and set the limits of our Obedience upon Gospel-grounds and to Gospel-ends and purposes as hath been fully and clearly proved by Testimonies of God and Men. See Tit. 2.11 12. If he now Object and say that this proves that the Precepts are no parts of the Gospel but borrowed from the Law I answer It proves no such thing and what he talks of borrowing Precepts from the Law is false and unintelligible For I demand who it is that borrows Precepts from the Law Either it must be the Gospel or God But it can be neither And 1. It is not the Gospel that borrows Precepts from the Law for borrowing is a Personal Act but the Gospel is no Person therefore it cannot Borrow Again the Gospel according to this Brother is nothing but an Absolute Promise or bundle of Absolute Promises let him then prove if he can that an absolute Promise borrows a Precept and shew how it doth so borrow for we neither do nor can believe it upon his bare word 2. It is not God who borrows Precepts from the Law For 1. He that borrows a thing doth want and need that thing before he borrow it and he borrows it to supply his want But God never wanted and needed the precepts of the Law 2. The thing which one borrows is not his own before he borrows it but belongs to another Person but the Law and its Precepts were always Gods own and therefore he could never borrow the Precepts of the Law from another to whom they belonged The Truth is God is the Author and Owner both of the Law and of the Gospel and he first made the Law and Subjected man unto it and obliged him to keep it perfectly but Man having transgressed it God made the Gospel-Covenant and proposed it to Man and therein offered him a Remedy against the Sin and Misery he had brought on himself and his Posterity by the breach of the Law He commanded Man also by Faith to accept of the Remedy offered in the Gospel-Covenant and for the future to perform sincere obedience to the Law which he had formerly Transgressed Here is no borrowing Precepts from the Law but after the Law was broken and thereby Man Ruined God of his Soveraign Free-grace so made and Proposed to Man the Gospel-covenant or which is the same the New Law of Grace as thereby 1. To oblige him to believe in Christ and by Faith to receive the Remedy offered And 2. For the future to give sincere Obedience to the Moral Law in order to his obtaining full possession of the Happiness purchased by Christ the Mediator and promised in the Gospel-covenant whereof Christ is Mediator And thus it was that the Moral Law came to belong to the Gospel not by the Gospel's nor by God's borrowing the precepts of the Law which to imagine is Ridiculous but by God's making sincere obedience to his own Moral Law to be one of the Terms of his Gospel Covenant and by his so framing the Gospel-Covenant as by it to require of Man sincere obedience to the Moral Law According to that Gen. 17.1 I am the Almighty God walk before me and be thou perfect upright or sincere And Tit. 2.11 12. The Grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all Men teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly Lusts we should live Soberly Righteously and Godlily in this present world Looking for that blessed hope c. Obj. 2. Secondly my R. B. indeavours to prove that the Gospel can have no precepts because if it had any precepts God would not be infinitely wise and unchangeable and his Moral natural Law which he first gave to Man at his Creation would not be perfect This Consequence he labours to prove in pag. 43. And I freely grant that the Gospel could have no precepts if from its having precepts it did follow by good and necessary Consequence that God would not on that supposition be infinitely wise and absolutely unchangeable and that his Moral natural Law would not be perfect For certainly God is infinitely wise and absolutely unchangeable this is as sure and evident as it is that there is a God at all It is certain also and I have always believed it and here before asserted it that the Moral natural Law is most perfect in its kind and obliges to the most perfect i. e. sinlessly perfect performance of the several duties which belong to it In that way which the Lord God intended It should oblige to the performance of them If my R. B. believe this as firmly as I do then we are agreed as to this matter of the infinite wisdom and unchangeableness of God and the perfection of his Moral natural Law in its
obtain pardon of the sinful Defects of our Justifying Faith and Evangelical Repentance if Christ did not so believe and repent for us I answer very easily That we obtain pardon of the sinful Defects of our Faith and Repentance in consideration of Christs meritorious and satisfactory Obedience unto death even the death of the Cross His 5th Objection is ibid. p. 44. That the Moral Law by its first Precept commands us to believe in God but Christ is God This Argument he seems to lay great stress on and yet it may be easily answered For making this appear we must distinguish between what the first Precept of the Moral Law by it self immediately commands us to do and what it commands us to do only by vertue of a supernatural Revelation intervening and by means of a positive Gospel-Precept superadded to the Law of Nature This Distinction applied clears the Matter and answers the Argument Thus The first Precept of the Moral Law by it self immediately commands us to believe in God only The major Proposition in this sense is true but then the minor Proposition is false It is false That Christ is God only For he is not only God but Man also He is God-Man and Mediator between God and Men 1 Tim. 2.5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and Men the Man Christ Jesus And then the Conclusion is false taken as it ought to be in the same sense in which the Major proposition is true It is false that the first Precept of the Moral Law by it self immediately without the Intervention of a Supernatural Revelation and the superadition of a positive Gospel precept Commands us to believe in Christ the Mediator for Justification by his Righteousness imputed to us It is one thing to believe in God considered simply as God and only God and it is another thing to believe in Christ for Justification considered not simply as God or only as God but considered as God-Man and Mediator between God and Men. The first Command by it self immediately requires faith in God simply considered as God and only God and Christ being really and truly God I have granted and do grant that the first Commandment by it self immediately doth require faith in him considered only as God which yet is not a Justifying faith as such But then Christ being not only God but Man also he being God-Man and Mediator between God and Men I deny that the first Commandment by it self immediately requires faith in him as such i. e. as God-Man for Justification and I affirm that its only mediately that it requires Justifying faith in him as God-Man So that as I have often said it is the supernatural Revelation with the positive precept of the Gospel-Covenant that immediately and first in order of nature obliges us to believe with a Justifying faith in Christ God-Man and Mediator between God and Men. According to that Exod. 23.20 21. Behold I send an Angel before thee to keep thee in the way and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared Beware of him and obey his voice provo●e him not for he will not pardon your transgressions for my Name is in him See Deut. 18.15.18 19. and Mat. 17.5 Behold a voice out of the Cloud which said This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased hear ye him In these Scriptures we have both a supernatural Revelation of the Eternal word and Son of God Designed to be Mediator and Actually mediating between God and Men and also a positive Gospel precept to believe in him and it is by means of the said Supernatural revelation and positive precept that the first Commandment of the Moral natural Law obliges us to believe in Christ the Mediator with a Justifying faith And the granting that the Moral Law doth thus require faith in Christ the Mediator in as much as it obliges us to believe all supernatural Revelations which God makes known unto us and to obey all positive Commands which he at any time lays upon us is so far from making against the Gospels having any positive precepts belonging to it that on the contrary it plainly makes for the Gospels having such precepts since it is by means of such precepts or precept that the Moral natural Law doth oblige Men to believe in Christ with a Justifying faith And the same I have said and do still say of Evangelical Repentance as a means of qualifying and disposing Sinners for obtaining the pardon of their sins by Faith in Christ And here I may stop and need not to go one step further in answering what he further Writes in his Seventh Chapter to prove that the Moral Natural Law commands Faith and Repentance for what I have said already doth sufficiently answer whatever in it doth really militate against me Most of it is altogether impertinent as where he strenuously proves what is not denyed but was plainly owned and asserted in the Apology that the Moral Natural Law requires Faith in God and a legal Repentance of all the sinful Race of Mankind that have the use of their Reason and can discern between Good and Evil The rest of it contains a meer non sequitur and is nothing but a drawing of consequences violently against the hair as that because the Moral Natural Law of it self requires a Legal Faith and trust in God and a Legal Repentance for Sin therefore it so requires a Justifying Faith in Christ the Mediator and an Evangelical Repentance for pardon of sin which doth not at all follow as I have shewed and proved at large and have no obligation on me to do it over again I am sensible that my following him to lay open his Impertinences and Inconsequent Reasonings hath already necessitated me to repeat too often the same things I must therefore restrain my self from pursuing him any further as I have done and endeavour to come unto a speedy close of what is necessary to be said on this Head concerning the Precepts that belong to the Gospel or Covenant of Grace And in order to this there is no more needful to be done but that 1. I desire the Reader carefully to attend unto a few things which will be useful to preserve him from being imposed upon 2. That I put my R. B. in mind of some of his Mistakes First then I desire the Reader that he may not be imposed upon to attend carefully to these few things 1. Whereas Mr. G. perpetually Talks of a New Law and industriously labours to make People believe that I hold the Gospel to be a New Law of Duties by and for which we are to be Justified and Saved I declare that this is a gross mistake to say no worse of it for I do not say that the Gospel is simply a New Law but with this mollifying restriction that it is a Law of Grace or a New Law of Grace So I say often in the Apology And the reason of my saying so
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
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 i● 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
before where he thus writes † A●que h●ec universa in una Persona Christi unici Mediatoris Dei Hominum ita continentur nodo indissolubili juncta connexa sunt ut qui couatur unum ex illis Christo adimere conetur Christum solvere quam esse notam certissimam spiritus Antichristi Johannes Apostolus dilectus Discipulus Domini Docet in prima sua Catholica ●pist●a coque crimine Antichristianismi summi sacrilegii tenentur omnes haeresiarchae eorum sectatores pertinaces qui Schismate impio imprimis Christum divellere conati sunt quod nullo mo so potest fieri Bibliander ubi supra Pag. 198 199. And all these things are so contained and joyned and connected together by an undissoluble Knot in the one Person of Christ the only Mediator between God and Men that whosoever endeavours to take one of them from Christ he endeavours to Destroy Christ which to be a most certain mark of the Spirit of Antichrist the Apostle John and beloved Disciple of the Lord teaches us in his first general Epistle And of this Crime of Antichristianism and of the highest Sacriledg are guilty all Authors or inventers of Heresies and their obstinate Followers who by an ungodly Schism do principally indeavour to divide Christ which can no way be done Thus the Learned and pious Bibliander I hope therefore my Reverend brother will joyn with us and for the future acknowledge that the office of a Lord and Judge too doth belong to Christ the Mediator and that eo nomine because he is Mediator and as he is Mediator For as the Dutch Annotators have it on 1 Cor. 15.25 He must Reign as King That is Accomplish his Kingly office as Mediator c. In short as I hope we shall so I wish we may all agree in that of Salvian an Ancient and Zealous writer of the fifth century * Nos ita judicandum humanum genus a Christo dicimus ut tamen etiam nunc omnia Deum prout rationabile putat regere ac dispensare credamus ita in futuro judicio judicaturum affirmemus ut tamen semper etiam in hoc saeculo judicasse doceamus Dum enim semper gubernat Deus semper judicat quia Guberuatio ipsa est judicium Salvian Lib. 1. de Gubernatione Dei Pag. 15. Vid. etiam Lib. 2. Pag. 55. ubi haec habet unde tu qui ad solatium arbitror peccatorum tuorum considerari actus nostros a Deo non putas ex hoc ipso aspici te a Christo semper intellige puniendum forsitan propediem esse cognosce We so say that Mankind will be Judged by Christ as that yet we believe also that God now at present doth rule and dispence all things as he things reasonable or sit and let us so affirm that Christ will Judge at the Day of Judgment which is to come hereafter as notwithstanding to teach also that he hath always judged in this world For whilst God doth always govern he doth always Judge also because the very Governing Act it self of God and so of Christ the Mediatorial King is Judgment Thus Salvian And I think this may suffice for Answer to Mr. G's Third Objection 4. Obj. Lastly He appeals to the express words of Christ himself in John 3.18 He that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God And says page 55. He is confident we will have regard to these words Answer Indeed his Confidence in this is well grounded for we really have as we ought a very great regard to these and all the other words of our most blessed and glorious Lord and they have a Commanding power over us to induce us to receive them with faith and love But what then must we therefore have regard to Mr. G's Consequence which he draws from them by force and violence That doth not at all follow And for my own part I declare that I reject his Consequence which is that the Gospel or Covenant and Law of Grace hath no threanings since he that believeth not is Condemned already Because he hath not believed in the Name of the only-begotten Son of God And whereas he says that the unbeliever is already Condemned by the old Law of works and therefore there is no need that he be Condemned again by the Gospel and a new Law of Grace I Answer that a Man who lives under the Preaching of the Gospel and yet remains still in unbelief is already Condemned both by Law and Gospel by the old Covenant and also by the New so long as he continues in his unbelief as I shewed before And it doth not become us to say unto God that he needs not to do the same thing twice when we know that he hath twice done it especially when we may plainly see that tho the same person be twice over Condemned yet it is in different respects and for two different causes First he is Condemned by the old Law of works for not keeping it perfectly and personally so as never to break it either by original or actual sin And thus all Unbelievers in the world are condemned even Heathens that never heard the joyful sound of the Gospel and never had a Gospel-Offer of Mercy upon the Terms of the New Covenant and Law of Grace Secondly He is condemned also by the Gospel or New Covenant Law of Grace for not accepting the Gospel-Offer of Mercy for not receiving and applying to himself the Remedy tendred to him in the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace Here this Unbeliever is guilty of a sin which the foresaid Heathens who have only the Law of Nature are not guilty of he is guilty of a sin which is directly and immediately against the saving Remedy mercifully provided and offered him in the Gospel and therefore there is sufficient Reason for condemning him again by the Gospel-Covenant I say for condemning him to a greater Degree of Punishment than that of meer Heathens who are guilty only of sins against the Law of Nature but are guilty of no sin against the Gospel of Christ are not at all guilty of any sin in neglecting or refusing to receive Christ by Faith and the Salvation offered through him in the Gospel-Covenant Our Saviour says in this very Text That the Unbeliever who is guilty of Positive Unbelief against the Gospel is condemned already not only and meerly because he hath broken God's natural moral Law but because he hath not believed in the Name of the only begotten Son of God And then as it were to obviate Mr. G's Objection he adds immediately This is the Condemnation that light is come into the world and Men loved Darkness rather than Light Because their deeds were Evil. See what was quoted before in the remarks on Mr. G's sixth Chapter out of Mr. Hutcheson's Exposition on John 3. v. 18.19 As for Mr.
G's Confirmation or Illustration of his fourth objection by a comparison taken from An Earthly Physitian who threatens his patient with Death if he do not take the prescribed Physick And yet the threatning is no part of the medicine nor doth the Physitian design to murder his patient by the said threatning It is like all the rest of no force at all against the Gospel's having threatnings of its own For the just Consequence can be no other but this That just so tho the Gospel threaten an unbeliever with Eternal Death if he do not by a true Faith receive Christ and his Righteousness offered to him in the new Covenant or Law of Grace yet the threatning is no part of Christ and his Righteousness which is to be received as the spiritual Physick of the Soul nor doth the Gospel design by the said threatning to damn the unbeliever but rather it designs to take him off from his unbelief and to induce him thereby to believe in Christ and by believing to receive and apply the Spiritual Physick offered him to preserve his Soul from Eternal Death This now is the just Consequence and it is so far from militating against my principle that it rather makes for it and is an Illustration of it For these two things I willingly grant 1. That tho the Gospel Covenant do threaten an unbeliever with Eternal Death and the threatning is a secondary subservient part of the said Gospel-Covenant yet the threatning is no part of the Spiritual Physick it self to wit of Christ and his Righteousness revealed and offered in the Gospel-Covenant to be received by faith that by the Spiritual Physick so received the Soul may be saved from Eternal Death 2. I grant that the Gospel doth not design by its threatning to damn the Soul of the unbeliever but rather it designs to preserve him from Damnation by taking him off from his unbelief and by perswading him to believe in Christ that through him he may have Eternal Life And here I desire it may be remembred That I do not speak of the design of any person but of the design of the Gospel-threatning and I say that the designed use of it is not to damn the unbeliever but rather to bring him off from his unbelief and so to preserve him from Damnation According to that of Paul 2. Cor. 5.11 Knowing the terror of the Lord we perswade Men. And that of Jude Others save with fear pulling them out of the fire Judes Epistle v. 23. And this way of endeavouring to save Souls by Gosper-threatnings was according to the Commission for Preaching the Gospel which the Apostles received from Christ As was shewed before from Mark 16.15 16. I conclude this with the words of the Judicious Mr. Hutcheson * Hutcheson on John 3. v. 17. pag. 39.40 Christ did nothing at his first coming to procure Condemnation to any but on the contrary he offered Salvation to lost Man tho accident ally by reason of Man's Corruption and not making use of him his coming did heighten Mens Condemnation as John 3. v. 18.19 And again in Doctr. 6. he saith Albeit Christ may be eventually for the falling of many and his coming will afford sad matter of ditty against them yet all the blame of this lyeth upon themselves who stumble at the Rock they should build themselves upon who reject their own mercy by offer and by opposition thereunto do harden and blind themselves so much also do these words teach being understood of the nature of his work and carriage as is above explained SECT V. His Third assertion is p. 42.56 That the Gospel hath no conditional promises He grants that the Gospel hath promises which look like conditional promises but denies that they are really conditional and affirms that they are only Declarations of the Connexion of the blessings of Grace p. 42. His discourse he calls his poor Writing p. 59. Which is very true for a poor Writing it appears to be and in this part of it especially it seems to be both poor and blind yet the Author of it may be rich and sharp-sighted tho the discourse be poor and blind and if he be so indeed the more he is to be blamed for writing on this subject in such a poor and blind manner For he knows well enough that many Sound and Learned Divines have solidly proved the Conditionality of some promises of the Gospel and that generally they profess to believe their conditionality Many instances of this were given in the Apology And I do not think that Mr. G. will be so immodest or will have so little regard to Truth and honesty as to deny so plain a matter of fact I could add very many more witnesses of this matter of fact unto those produced in the Apology but I shall only Name one in this place and that is the ●ell-known Mr. Th. Shepherd of New England who says in these formal express words For any to think the Gospel requires no Conditions is a sudden Dream against a hundred of Scriptures which contain conditional yet Evangelical promises and against the Judgment of the most Judicious of our Divines * Shepherd's Theses Sabbaticae p. 78. And as to what Mr. Goodwin saith here That the Gospel promises which seem to be conditional are only Declarations of the Connexion of the blessings of Grace I Answer that it was clearly proved in The Apology p. 45 50 57 58 59. That the Gospel hath Promises really conditional and being conditional there must be a Connexion and they must declare that Connexion between the Condition and the Subsequent Blessings of Grace promised on Condition but then it is and must be a Conditional Connexion such as I shewed it to be by Scripture and Reason And in page 114. I shewed this to have been the Judgment of the Synod of Dort and set that whole matter in a clear Light which I received from the Collegiate Suffrage of the British Divines in that Synod And so long as I have Scripture and Reason with the most Judicious of our Divines even the Synod of Dort for the Truth that I defend I do not in the least fear any hurt that Mr. G's poor writing as he calls it can do to our Just and Righteous Cause which in the Lord's Strength I stand for and through Grace am resolved so to do But though his writing can do no hurt to me nor to the Truth of God which I defend yet it may do hurt to the Souls of poor ignorant people and therefore for their sakes I will briefly answer his Objections against the Gospel's having any Conditional Promises And Obj 1. First He argues thus p. 56. If any promises of the Gospel were conditional they would not differ in kind but only in degree from the promises of the Law for both would be made to obedience with this only difference that the promises of the Law are made to obedience in the highest degree of
the Scriptures which are generally thought to contain conditional promises such as Mark 16.16 Act. 10.43 Luk. 13.5 Rom. 10.9 c. He saith Dis pag. 58. Is to assert that the import of them is no more but this that there is an unchangeable Connexion between the blessings of the Gospel that Faith Repentance and Holiness are indissolubly fastened with Pardon Justification and Eternal Life in the same person or that God justifies and saves no Man of ripe years but whom at his own due appointed time he makes a believer brings him to Repentance and Sanctifies his Nature To which I Answer 1. That here indeed part of the truth is granted but not the whole truth and with the truth which is granted there is intermixed this great falsehood that all such Scriptures import no more than the foresaid unchangeable Connexion between the blessings of the Gospel For they do really import more 1. They import that the Connexion is not only indissoluble but that it is also conditional For instance that of the Apostle 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 imports manifestly that the Connexion between Faith and Salvation is not only indissoluble but that it is likewise conditional As was clearly proved in the Apol. pag. 50.57 58 59. 2. Such places of Scripture not only import an indissoluble unchangeable Connexion between the blessings of the Gospel but they moreover import such a Connexion between the duties of the Gospel and the blessings of it Between its antecedent duties and subsequent blessings For instance Faith is not only a blessing of the Gospel but it is also a commanded duty of the Gospel As it is written Act. 16.31 Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved Here Faith is commanded as a necessary duty which is to be performed by us antecedently to our obtaining of salvation and our obtaining of salvation is suspended till we perform that duty so as that if we perform it we shall be saved Rom. 10.9 Act. 16.31 But if we perform it not we shall not be saved John 3.36 And John 8.24 And the Lord having thus Commanded Faith in the Gospel and promised us salvation upon our believing and suspended his giving us salvation untill we through grace have performed the Commanded duty of Faith there wants nothing to make our actual Faith to be a condition and the Connexion between the Duty of Faith and the blessing of salvation to be a conditional Connexion 2dly Tho I do not say that Mr. G. is an Autinomian by his principle yet I must say that what he asserts to be the full import and meaning of the foresaid Scriptures doth not seem sufficient to secure Men from real Antinomianism because a Man may possibly assert all this which he here asserts and yet may not only be like an Antinomian but may be a most real Antinomian To make this appear Consider 1. That it is possible and implies no contradiction For a Man to be so Drunk with error as to perswade himself that Faith Repentance and Holiness are indeed blessings which God gives to Men but that they are no duties required of Men. Mr. Goodwin would make him believe that they are no duties required by the Gospel and he may by the help of the Devil make himself believe that as they are not duties required by the Gospel so they are no duties required of him by the Law and he may ground his false perswasion upon a false Interpretation of Rom. 6.14 Ye are not under the Law but under Grace Consider 2. That the Man is certainly a most real Antinomian if he be once of this perswasion that he is not bound either by Law or Gospel to believe in Christ to repent of his Sins and to lead a Holy Life but that without Transgressing any precept of the Law under which he fancies he is not being elected and justified from Eternity he may be an impenitent unbeliever and an unholy liver And as for the Gospel Mr. Goodwin hath taught him that it hath no precept and requires no duty of him at all I hope my R. B. will not deny but that such a Man is not only like to the Antinomian Monster but that he really is an Antinomian Monster Consider 3. That this Antinomian in consistency with his Antinomian Principle may assert this which Mr. G. saith is the full import of all the foresaid Scriptures which most Divines affirm but Mr. Goodwin denies to contain any conditional promises For 1. It is the opinion of this Antinomian that as salvation is a blessing of the Gospel so Faith Repentance and Holiness are blessings of the Gospel which God gives to the elect tho they be no duties which he requires 2. This Antinomian may believe that tho Faith Repentance and Holiness be no duties required yet being blessings of the Gospel Which God gives to his elect he justifies and saves no Man but whom at his own due appointed time he makes a believer brings him to Repentance and sanctifies his nature 3. Upon this the Antinomian may assert that there is an unchangeable Connexion between Faith Repentance Holyness and Salvation as blessings of the Gospel and that Faith Repentance and Holyness are indissolubly fasten'd with Pardon Justification and Eternal Life in the same person All this the Man may assert and yet be an Antinomian still for he may still hold that Faith Repentance and Holiness are blessings but no duties and that he is not obliged to them either by Law or Gospel From all which it appears not to be necessarily true which Mr. G. saith to wit that whosoever asserts this Connexion of blessings Is no Antinomian nor so much as like to such an execrable Monster For I have shewed plainly that a Man may assert this and yet be a most real Antinomian and hold that he is obliged to no duty either by Law or Gospel But saith Mr. Goodain What! Is Holyness the condition of obtaining the beatifical vision No tho it doth naturally dispose the Soul and make it meet for and capable of this blissful enjoyment I Answer and is that so strange and wonderful a thing to hear of Holyness its being called a condition required on our part in order to our obtaining Eternal Life which consists in the beatifical vision Is not such a manner of speech ordinary among our Protestant Divines But I distinguish Holyness is not a Meritorious condition of the beatifical vision of our right to it or of the obtaining of it and yet it is a dispositive condition required of us in order to our obtaining the beatifical vision for the alone Meritorious Righteousness of Christ Ay but says Mr. G. Holyness naturally disposes the Soul and makes it meet for that Blissful Enjoyment Answer and as it disposes the Soul for that blessedness from the very nature of the thing
is expressly called the New-Covenant I desire that this may be remembered and withal that all the Clamour Mr. G. after C. and D. makes against the Gospel's being a New-Law is in truth against the Gospel's being a New-Covenant that hath any precept obliging us to any Duty with conditional promises and threatnings For as we have declared often we mean by the Gospel's being a New-Law that it is a New-Covenant which by its preceptive part obliges us to certain duties with promises to encourage us to the performance of them and threatnings to restrain us from the neglect of them And principally we mean by its being a New-Law that it is a New-Covenant with precept and promise and that the threatning is but the secondary less principal part which is subservient to the principal This being premised let us see how he Answers the Texts of Scripture urged by me in the Apol. And 1st he begins with Rom. 3.27 And says in the Contents of the Chapter That he hath recovered it to its right sense Now who that reads this would not think that in the Apol. I had interpreted this place of Scripture and had put a wrong sense upon it since writing against me he saith that he hath recovered it to its right sense And yet in this controversy about the Gospel's being a Law or not a Law I did not at all interpret that place of Scripture nor give any sense of it right or wrong It is true I quoted it twice to wit in p. 22. and 24. But all that I said of it was that from Rom. 3.27 It appears that the Gospel is Called a Law it s called the Law of Faith expresly Was this to interpret i● and to put a wrong sense on it from which Mr. Goodwin must recover it Doth not he himself acknowledge this to be true Has not he confessed and brought Texts of Scripture to prove that the Gospel is called a Law and doth he not here confess with me that the Gospel is called the Law of Faith in Rom. 3.27 How is it possible then that he should recover it to its right sense from which I had wrested it Since I did not give any sense of it but only quoted it to shew that in the Holy Scripture the Gospel-Covenant is called a Law the Law of Faith and that the brethren ought not to be displeased with us for calling the Gospel a Law because the Holy Scripture expressly calls it a Law and the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 Here Disc p. 59. it is where he calls his book a poor Writing and if this Chapter together with the rest do not prove it to be poor and blind and naked I am much mistaken But because I am a fallible Man and liable to mistake as other Men are I will now affirm no such thing of his discourse but will hear and consider what he saith for recovering Scripture to its Right sense from which I did not wrest it first then p. 59. he says that by the words Law of Faith In Rom. 3.27 The Apostle means no more than that Doctrine of Grace which declares a believing Sinner to be Justified by the Righteousness of Christ which by Faith he receiveth But now what if a body should deny that the Apostle means no more and should affirm that he also means that the Law of Faith is a Doctrine of Grace which requires Faith as the receptive condition or instrumental means of Justification by the Mediator's Righteousness Might he not prove what he had affirmed by an Argument taken from this Text where the Law of Faith is expressly opposed to the Law of works where is boasting then It is excluded by what Law Of works Nay but by the Law of Faith Thus the Law of works is the L●● or Doctrine which requires works that we may be justified by the Righteousness of our own works which doth not exclude boasting Therefore the Law of Faith is the Law or Doctrine which requires Faith that we may be Justified only by and for Christ the Mediators Righteousness which doth exclude boasting And further might not a Man for this Interpretation alledge the Testimony of our Confession of Faith which Chap. 7. Act. 3. Saith that the Lord in the Covenant of Grace i. e. the Law of Faith freely offers unto Sinners Life and Salvation by Jesus Christ requiring of them Faith in him that they may be saved But Mr. G. opposes two things to this 1. He saith this Interpretation doth not exclude boasting 2. It is contrary to the Judgment of all the right Protestants who have commented on the Epistle to the Romans First he saith p. 59. that this Interpretation Doth not exclude boasting but rather greatly promotes it For why should not a Man Glory in his Faith if it be an Act of obedience to this new-New-Law i. e. this Evangelical Law of Faith which by its statute makes his Justification to depend on this his performance I Answer I do not know the tempers of all Men nor of Mr. G. it may be for ought I know that he or some other of like temper doth really think that he might justly boast of and Glory in his Faith if the Evangelical Law or New-Covenant did require Faith of him in order to his being justified by and for Christ's Mediatorial Righteousness But I would ask such a Man a few questions And 1. What is a Man's believing that he may be justified Gal. 2.16 Is that believing a doing nothing or a doing something I hope Sir you will not say that it is a doing nothing For if it were a doing nothing then Paul's meaning in Gal. 2.16 Would be this we have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be Justified by the Faith of Christ that is We have done nothing in Jesus Christ that we might be Justified by doing nothing of Jesus Christ Which if it be not an abominable wresting of the Apostles words and a turning them into non-sense let all Men Judge that have the sober use of their reason But if you say that believing in Christ is a doing something I ask again is that doing something the doing of some good thing or some evil thing I hope you dare not say that it is a doing of some evil thing And therefore you must say that it is a doing of some good thing And then I ask again is that good thing required and Commanded by any Law of God or is it not at all commanded If you say that it is not at all Commanded nor forbidden by any Law of God Then I say 1. That it is not Morally good but of an indifferent middle nature between Moral good and evil For what is not at all Commanded nor forbidden is perfectly indifferent and neither Morally good nor evil 2. Then it follows necessarily that you are not at all bound to believe and that you do not sin tho you never believe in Christ 3. Then it follows that to be justified by Faith
is to be justified by doing a thing indifferent 4. Then it follows that justifying Faith is of a contradictious nature for it is good and not good It is good as is now supposed and it is not good because it is not commanded by any Law of God But if you choose the other Member of the disjunction and say that Faith in order to Justification is required and commanded by some Law of God then since that Law of God is not his positive Evangelical Law of the New-Co-venant for that you have now denied it to be for fear of promoting boasting it remains that it must needs be the Moral natural Law only which requires and commands Faith in Christ as indispensably necessary to Justification in persons of riper years But now Sir by your own Argument p. 59. I prove that the moral-natural-Moral-natural-Law doth not require and command Faith as indispensably necessary to receive Christ's Righteousness for Justification For if a Man's justifying Faith were An Act of Obedience to God's moral-natural-Moral-natural-Law boasting would not be excluded But rather a great occasion would be given to promote it For Why should not a Man Glory in his Faith if it be an Act of Obedience to the moral-natural-Moral-natural-Law which hath made it indispensably necessary to receive Christ's Righteousness for Justification He may then plead that he hath done what was required and so he may as well claim pardon and a right to life on the account of having done all that this moral-natural-Moral-natural-Law hath under the Gospel made necessary to his receiving Christ's Righteousness for his Justification As Adam if he had continued in his Primitive State might have formed a Plea of his Right to life for having discharged all that Duty which the Law of Works commanded and proposed as the condition of his being eternally blessed Thus Mr. Goodwin is caught in his own Net and he is held in it so fast that upon his Principles laid down in his Discourse he can never get out of it Mr. C. indeed strives to avoid this by maintaining That we are justified by the Habit of Faith and not by any Act of Faith required of us and done by us and though by this he contradicts the Apostle Rom. 4.24 and 10.9 10. Gal. 2.16 and Confession of Faith and Catechism and all Protestant Divines that I know yet that is nothing so long as it serves a Turn But for Mr. G. I am apt to think he will not take that course to extricate himself for he hath strenuously asserted in his Discourse of the Gospel That Justifying Faith is a Duty commanded by the moral law and so did Mr. C. before him and here in this very Chapter under consideration he affirms That Justifying Faith receives Christ's Righteousness for Justification But the Habit of Faith is it self received and doth not by it self without the Act receive any thing at all But it may be some will say Though this be a sufficient Answer to your brother Mr. G. yet what if an Enemy to our Religion should assault us with the same Argument how would you answer it To such I say 1. That he would be a very contemptible Enemy that should use such a Poor Argument against our Religion 2. I would tell him That though our Faith in Christ be an Act of Obedience to the law of Faith yet we ought not to boast of it and that for this very reason amongst others because it is an Act of Obedience and Duty Luke 17.9 10. Doth he thank that Servant because he did the things which were commanded him to do I trow not Saith our Saviour So likewise ye when ye shall have done c. 3. I would tell him That we ought not to be proud and to boast of our Faith because it is by the special discriminating Grace of God that we are enabled to believe and that we actually believe in Christ for Justification 1 Cor. 4.7 Who maketh thee to differ and what hast thou that thou didst not receive and if thou didst receive it why dost thouglory as if thou didst not receive it 4. I would tell him That though our Justifying Faith be really an Act of Obedience to the Evangelical Law of Faith yet we cannot glory that we are justified by it as it is an Act of Obedience For it is not true That we are Justified by it under that formal consideration as it is an Act of Obedience but we are Justified by it as it is graciously appointed by God to be the Condition of the New-Covenant or to be the Receptive Applicative Condition and Instrumental Means whereby we embrace Christ and his Righteousness and trust to be justified and saved by him and for his righteousness only 5. I would tell him That tho our Faith in Christ be an Act of Obedience to the law of Faith yet we cannot plead That we should be justified for our Faith and our Obedience therein to the law of Faith as Adam if he had persevered in his Innoceccy might have pleaded That he should have been justified for his perfect Obedience to the law and Covenant of VVorks because Adam's Personal Perfect Obedience to the law of VVorks was to have been his intire justifying Righteousness for which he should have been justified and lived whereas our Faith and Obedience therein to the law of Faith is not any the least part of that justifying righteousness for which we are pardoned and have a right to eternal life but it is only the special Condition or Mean appointed by God whereby we receive and trust to the Mediator's Righteousness as that by and for which alone we are Justified and Saved And by this it plainly appears That though Faith be required by the law of Faith yet that same law of Faith excludes boasting But in the 2d place Mr. G. saith This Interpretation is contrary to the Judgment of all the right Protestants who have Commented on the Epistle to the Romans I Answer That I have shewed before that this is the very Interpretation of Rom. 3.27 Given by the Authors of the Dutch Annotations and of the assemblie's Annotations and by Mr. Mayo in the second Volume of Pool's Annotations And with them agrees Mr. Dickson whose words on Rom. 3. v. 27.28 Arg. 10. Are as followeth Because by the Law of Faith or Covenant of Grace which requires Faith to our Justification by the Righteousness of another Man's boasting in himself is excluded c. And the learned Stephanus De-Brais in his Paraphrastical Analysis of the Epistle to the Romans on Rom. 3. v. 27. Having shewed that the Law of works doth not exclude boasting He adds * Restat ergo lex Evangelica clamans Crede et Salvaberis quae Justificationis nostrae norma fit c. Scphan De-Brais Epist ad Romanos Analys Cap. 3. p. 58. There remains therefore the Gospel-Law crying believe and thou shalt be saved which may be the rule of our Justification c. I could add many to these but
it may be Mr. G. will say that tho these were Protestants yet they were not right Protestants For the word right seems to be put in on purpose that he may have an evasion when pressed with the Authority and Testimony of Protestant Divines who are for our Interpretatation and against his But if he should say that the Divines I have named are not right Protestants yet I hope he will not say that Beza was not a right Protestant since he himself appeals to Beza p. 60. And therefore to Beza we will go who in his large Annotations on Rom. 3.27 Writes thus * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 per quam legem i. e. qua Doctrina sicut interdum Hebraeis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Torah in genere est doctrina quae aliquid praescribit qua ratione Evangelium vocat legem fidei i. e. doctrinam quae salutem proponit sub conditione si credideris quam et ipsam deus dat nobis ut praestare possimus oppositam doctrinae quae justitiam et salutem proponit cum conditione si omnia feceris quam unus Christus in sese pro nobis et implere potuit et implevit c. Beza in Rom. 3. v. 27. By what law that is by what Doctrine As sometimes among the Jews the word Torah Law signifies in general a Doctrine which prescribes any thing Accordingly the Apostle calls the Gospel the aw of Faith i. e. a Doctrine which proposes salvation on condition if thou believest which very condition God also gives us power to perform and this is opposed to the Doctrine to wit of the Law which proposes Righteousness and Salvation with the condition if thou shalt do all which Christ alone ●n himself could and did perform for us Thus Beza In whose words the world may see plainly That 1. He says the word Law among the Jews signifies indeed a Doctrine but a Doctrine that prescribes something 2. That the Law of works is a Doctrine that prescribes works of perfect obedience as the condition of life 3. That the Law of Faith or Gospel is a Doctrine which prescribes Faith as the condition and which proposes salvation upon condition of believing 4. That the condition of the Law of Works none but Christ hath performed or could performed 5. That God gives us power to perform the condition of the Gospel or the condition which the Law of Faith requires to justification And that in Beza's Judgment the Law and Doctrine of Faith ob●igeth us to believe in order to Justification is evident also by what follows where he saith that it doth flagitare require Faith of us and Faith only as that whereby we apprehend and receive the Righteousness which Christ hath purchased for us and freely gives unto us for our Justification And altho he hold that the Law of Faith obligeth us to believe in Christ for Justification yet he shews how it excludes all boasting Now this is the very sense which we give of the Law of Faith that it is such a Doctrine of Grace as hath the force of a Law ●nd obliges us to believe and proposes and promises to us the great blessing of free Justification by Christs imputed Righteousness upon condition if we believe which condition God gives us power to perform This being as clear as the light with what Conscience did my Reverend brother tell the world in Print that Beza was for him against us and that Beza gives the same sense of Rom. 3.27 Which he gives And of this he gives no other reason but this that Beza calls the Law of Faith a Doctrine which can be no Argument of his denying that the Law of Faith commands Faith because in the very same place he calls The Law of works a Doctrine likewise And yet it is confest by all that the Law of works commands works Here again the poverty of Mr. G's discourse appears and not only that but its nakedness too in so much that it wants a covering to hide its shame and by this I hope Mens eyes will be oppened to see what credit is to be given to him who thus shamefully abuseth Beza by clipping his Tongue and not suffering him to speak the truth but fathering upon him an opinion which is most evidently contrary unto his words 2. Here likewise I desire it may be observed that in the old Geneva Translation of our English Bibles which is of an hundred years standing at least there is this short note on Rom. 3.27 By what Doctrine Now the Doctrine of works hath this condition joyned with it if thou dost and the Doctrine of Faith hath this condition if thou believest Altho then of old our forefathers by Law of Faith understood a Doctrine of Faith yet they held it to be such a Doctrine as prescribes the duty and requires the condition of believing and that makes it to be an Evangelical Law just as we hold it to be What he talks in pag. 60.61 62. Of all the Popish Commentators on Rom. 3.27 And of Estins the Jesuit c. Is nothing but ad populum phalerae and is partly impertinent and partly ridiculous 2. Secondly He saith That Gal. 6.2 refuses to serve my design But I answer It 's plain from the Apology page 22. line 16 17. that my whole design in quoting Gal. 6.2 was to show that the Scripture calls the Gospel-covenant a Law and so it may be called there notwithstanding of what Mr. G. says to the contrary For though the words Law of Christ do not import the whole of the Gospel-covenant yet they import a part of it to wit the preceptive part For certainly he that loves his Neighbour as Christ loved him doth believe in Christ with a Faith working by love and he that so believes in Christ doth certainly fullfil the Condition of the Gospel-Govenant and by Consequence he that loves his Neighbours as Christ loved him doth fulfill the condition of the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace which is the Law of Christ As to what Mr. G. objects That Estins on the place affirms that Christ is given to men as a Legislator whom they may obey I answer That Dr. Owen affirms the same thing as is evident by his express formal words quoted before in the Remarks on the 7th Chapter It is true he doth not there prove Christ to be a Legislator from Gal. 6.2 but that is no matter he affirms that he is a Legislator and then he hath an Evangelical law And this being a Truth I for my part do like it never the worse because an Adversary believes it I wish our Adversaries both Papists and Arminians did with us receive not only that but all other Truths If Mr. G. say that the word Gospel or Gospel-Covenant is not expressed in Gal. 6.2 I answer Nor did I say that it is But there is expresly the word Law and I thought that sufficient to the purpose for which I quoted that Text. And though I should pass
it was that Justin took occasion to mention the new law and Covenant in his Answer to the foresaid Discourse of the Jew which Answer he thus begins There never was O Trypho nor ever will be another God besides him who created the whole world and we have no other God than you none but that same God who brought your fathers out of Egypt Nor do we trust in any other for there is no other but in him in whom you trust also to wit the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. And we trust in him and hope to be saved not by Moses nor by the Law to wit of Moses But I have read O Trypho that there should be a latter or after-Law and a Testament or Covenant c. As these words and what follows them are cited in the Apol. p. 24. This New-Law or Covenant Justin saith all Men must keep That would be saved Then alluding to Isa 42.6 He saith Christ was given to be this Eternal and latter-Law unto us and a sure Covenant after which there is neither Law nor precept nor Commandment How that passage of Justin is to be understood I have shewed before Then he proves out of Isaiah and Jeremiah that Christ was to come and that through him God would make this New and last Law or Covenant with his Church consisting Jews and Gentiles And since God was to do thus he concludes from the conversion of the Gentiles from Idols to Faith in the crucified Jesus and from their Holiness of Life and perseverance in Faith and Holiness to the Death that the Messias was already come and that this was the new-New-Law and Covenant which the Christians lived under and according to the terms whereof they hoped to be saved through Christ believed on For saith Justin we are the true Spiritual Israel the spiritual progeny of Jacob and Isaac and Abraham who in his uncircumcision by Faith obtained a good Testimony from God and was blessed and called the Father of many Nations even we who are brought near unto God by this crucified Christ This he confirms from Isaiah 55. v. 3.4 5. Then tells them this very Law ye Jews disgrace and vilify his New and Holy Covenant where he manifestly distinguishes the Covenant from the Lord himself neither do ye to this day receive it nor repent of your evil deeds The Legislator is come and present and you see him not The poor receive the Gospel and the blind see but you do not understand Then he tells them that they needed another Spiritual Circumcision and Sabbath and Unleavened bread and washing That God was not like them pleased with those external Rites and Ceremonies but that now by the New Law and Covenant he called them to true Evangelical Repentance and Faith in the Blood of Christ which alone can wash away sin and expiat the guilt of it To prove this he cites those Scriptures mentioned by Mr. G. he stops not there but goes on and tells the Jews that their External Rites Washings and Sacrifices were but Types and Shadows of the inward Spiritual Washing and Purification of Gods People by the Blood Spirit and word of Christ Wherefore he exhorts Trypho and his Company to Faith and Repentance according to the Tenour of the New-Covenant And that he doth in the words of Isaiah Chap. 55. from v. 3. To the end Now this was not the old Law and Covenant of works but the New Law or Covenant of Grace which Justin in the words of Isaiah Preached to these Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 231. This is that very thing which this New Law-giver Judges fit and meet to require of you From the premisses it is manifest that Justin did not think the New-Law or Covenant to be a Doctrine of Grace in such a sense as to require nothing of us at all for there and through the whole Dialogue he shews that Faith and Repentance and Evangelical obedience are required by the gospel-Gospel-Law and Covenant and says expressly that this Covenant all Men must keep that would obtain possession of the Inheritance of God Thus he Answered the Jew's objection and shewed that Christians had ground to hope for Mercy and Salvation tho they kept not the old Sinaitical Covenant because they had received from God a new-New-Law and Covenant of Grace which they kept and keeping it they were sure to obtain the pardon of their Sins and salvation of their Souls through the Blood and Death of Christ the Mediator and surety of that New and better Covenant That this is the true sense of Justin is evident by what I quoted out of him before in my remarks on Mr. G' s. 7th Chapter by what I have here related concerning the Jew's Objection and his Answer to it which was the true occasion of his mentioning the New Law and Covenant And by what he writes in pag. 243. 263 323 327. I might now pass from Justin to a vindication of the Testimonies of Cyprian from the exceptions made against them by Mr. G. if another Reverend Brother in his niblings at our Apol. had not pretended to prove in his Book on Rom. 4. That I impertinently quoted Justin Martyr His words in pag. 35. Are these I shall saith Mr. C. only instance his first citation out of Justin Martyr and I am willing to be Judged by any of the Subscribers that will take the pains to read it if Justin intends any thing more than the recommending the Christian Constitution and proving it preferable to the Mosaical for he says This new law is posterior to Moses his Law but the Apologists new law has been ever since the Fall of Adam Thus Mr. C. whose Arguments are to be considered before I pass any further I answer then thus That Justin intended the recommending of the Christian Constitution of the Covenant af Grace and proving it preferable to the Mosaical was never denied by me tho I deny that he intended no more than the recommending of it in Mr. C. his sense for I did and do most firmly believe That that was part of his Design and the other part of it was to prove against the Jew That the New Law or Covenant of Grace was now to be kept as it is in its Christian Constitution and that the keeping of it as such was sufficient to the obtaining of salvation and that the keeping of it in its Mosaical Constitution or form of Administration was not now necessary as Trypho pretended But then good Sir consider that in prosecution of that design he expressly calls the Christian constitution of it as such a New-Law and Covenant of the greatest or most excellent Authority of all which all Men now must keep whosoever they be that would obtain possession of the Inheritance of God Now I appeal to all Men of Common sense and reason if withal they have but common honesty whether this citation was not very pertinent to my purpose which was to prove that the accuser of the
to be corrupted but to dissipate the Darkness that hath been cast upon it 2 Cor. 2 1● and to set the Truth of it in a clear Light But with what success I have done this in the following Writing it is not expedient for me to declare Let others now judge of that matter as they may be concerned and as they will answer to God and their own Conscience The INDEX Chap. I. HIS gross Mistake in stating the Controversie How it ought to be stated Page 1 2. Chap. II. What only was inferred from the Gospels being called a Law in Scripture From the word Law its signifying a Doctrine not proved that it signifies nothing but a speculative Doctrine or Narrative that requires neither Faith nor Repentance The contrary proved from Isa 2.3 Acts 16.31 from Buxtorf and partly from his own concession p. 3 4. From the Gospel Covenants requiring Faith and Obedience and obliging to Duty it follows not that it will be a law of Works and that Man will be justified by Works His Argument retorted The Popish Socinian and Arminian sense of the Gospels being a law disclaimed p. 5 6. Chap. III. He grants that no great weight can be laid on an Argument from an Etymology Proved not to be the Error of the Galatians that they held the Gospel to be a new Law in the sense we hold it so to be p. 7. Chap. IV. That he mistakes my design in appealing to the Fathers which was only to prove matter of fact His quotations out of the Fathers are impertinent and partly ridiculous p. 8. to 11. Chap. V. His whole Fifth Chapter one intire impertinency p. 11 12 13. Chap. VI. Sect. 1. Of several things carefully to be attended unto for the right understanding of our old Protestant Writers and the clearing up of the true sense of the passages cited out of them p. 14 15 16 17. Sect. 2. Mr. G. first set of Testimonies clearly answered p. 17 to 32. Sect. 3. His second set of Testimonies Answered also p. 32 to 34. That we do not confound the Notions of things intirely distinct in their Natures and Ideas In what sense we do really hold the Gospel to be a Law of Grace that requires Duty p. 34 35. That the Gospel hath Threatnings of its own p. 35 to 38. Psal 19.8 9. and Rom. 3.27 cleared and thence shewed that the Gospel requires Faith and Obedience p. 38 39. Chap. VII Sect. 1. His gross Mistakes shewed The ridiculous demonstration he would father upon me proved to be a ridiculous figment of his own Brain p. 39 40. Sect. 2. How the Moral Natural Law doth and doth not oblige to all manner of Duties and of its perfection p. 44 to 46. That the same Duty in different respects and under different formal Notions may be required by two distinct Laws p. 46. Proved that justifying Faith and Evangelical Repentance are commanded and required by the gospel-Gospel-Law p. 46 to 62. How Obedience is required both by Law and Gospel And that the Gospel-Covenant hath Precepts which require sincere Obedience proved by Scripture and by many Testimonies of Antient Fathers and Modern Divines p. 62 to 94. Sect. 3. Five Objections answered Several Directions given and Mistakes discovered p. 94 to 107. Sect. 4. Gospel-Threatnings further proved by Scripture and Consentaneous Testimonies of many Protestant Divines and Objections answered p. 107 to 118. Shewed that the Office of a Judge doth belong to the Mediator and that Christ the Mediator was is and will be Judge p. 112 113 114 115 116. Sect. 5. The Gospel hath Conditional Promises Seven Objections answered Mr. Bradshaws Exposition of 2 Thess 1.8 p. 119 to 155. Chap. VIII Sect. 1. The Texts of Scripture Rom. 3.27 Gal. 6.2 Isa 42.4 Luke 19.27 shewed to be pertinently cited and Rom. 3.27 more largely vindicated Proved that we give the same sense of it which Beza gave p. 155 to 162. Sect. 2. Justin Martyrs Testimony cleared proved that he was very pertinently cited and that he believed the Gospel to be a New Law which hath Precepts p. 162 to 170. Cyprian Augustine and Salvian their Testimonies shewed to have been pertinently cited p. 170 to 172. Testimonies of Modern Divines vindicated p. 172. to 175. His way of visiting the Sick p. 175. Chap. IX The Popish Socinian and Arminian Opinion again rejected p. 176. The Doctrine of Merit not included in our Hypothesis His Popish Argument answered p. 176 177 178. Answer to his Advice p. 178 179. The whole concluded with Tertullians Rule of Faith p. 180. Remarks on the First Chapter of Mr. Thomas Goodwin's Discourse of the Gospel THIS Reverend Brother in his First Chapter Pages 4 5. States the Controversie and in so doing First saith That if by the Gospels being a New Law is meant a Doctrine of Grace newly revealed after the Covenant of Works was broken wherein God hath declared in what order and manner he will save guilty condemned Sinners it is presently granted and the Controversie is at end To which I Answer That if he will grant that God in the Gospel hath not only declared the Order and Manner of his own acting in saving Sinners but also that he hath declared and prescribed to us the Order and Manner of our acting in subordination to his Grace for obtaining our own Salvation through Christ and likewise that the Order prescribed to us is a Conditional Order with respect to the subsequent Blessings of the Covenant then we declare here as we did declare before in our Apology that we mean no more by the Gospels being a new Law of Grace But he denyes that the Lord in the Gospel hath prescribed any Conditional Order to be observed by us And therefore saith Secondly What is denyed is this That the Gospel is a Law commanding new Precepts as Conditions of obtaining its Blessings and Established with a Sanction promising Life and Happiness to the observance of them and threatning the neglect Answer I know no Man that ever affirmed what this Reverend Brother here denyes A Law commanding New Precepts is a Phrase peculiar to Mr. Goodwin and with my consent he shall have the honour of being the first Inventer and Authour of it For my part though I have heard of a Law commanding new Duties yet do I not remember that I have heard before of a Law commanding new Precepts for Precept and Commandment being all one a Law commanding new Precepts is a Law commanding new Commandments I thought the Commandments themselves had not been the Object or if you will the subject matter of the Commandments themselves but that the Duties Commanded had been the Object or Subject matter of the Commandments But we let that pass the thing which is most material is that he imagines his Adversaries do hold that the Precepts of the Gospel Law are the conditions of obtaining its Blessings Now this is such a wild fancy that I doubt whether ever it came into a Mans head that
was awake and in the free exercise of his Reason How then it comes to be in this Reverend Brothers Book and that in the very stating of the Controversie I do not understand But sure I am that I nor any of my Reverend Brethren that I know do not hold the Gospel to be a Law in that sense We do with all our hearts joyn with Mr. Goodwin in denying that the Precepts of the Gospel are Conditions of obtaining its Blessings What we say is That God hath made the performing of the Duties required by the Precepts of the Gospel Law to be the Condition of obtaining its Subsequent Blessings and that not for the sake of the performance or of the Duties performed but for the sake of Christ and his Righteousness according to the promise Thirdly In stating the Controversie he denies that the Gospel Law of Grace or Covenant of Grace has any Sanction either promissory of Life and Happiness unto those who perform the condition or minatory of punishment to those who neglect it Now here I must differ from him and affirm what he denyes But 1. I affirm it with this difference between the promissory and minatory Sanction That the Gospel primarily and principally promiseth its subsequent Blessings and Benefits to those who perform its Condition and doth but secondarily threaten Punishments against those who neglect to perform it designing thereby to restrain Men from the sin of not performing the Condition and to bind them over to punishment only on supposition that they do not performe the condition 2. I affirm that though the Gospel promise Life and Happiness unto those who perform its Condition yet it doth not promise it precisely for the performance sake but only for the sake of Christ and his Righteousness as it threatens punishment unto those who neglect to perform the Condition and that for the very neglect of performing it Heb. 2.3 Ephes 5.6 Col. 3.6 Some I am afraid will be apt to think that Mr. Goodwins stumbling on the Threshold at his first setting out and mistating the Controversie is a bad Omen for him Then in passing from his First to his Second Chapter he promises first to shew that it was little to my purpose to catch eagerly at the Word law whereever I could meet with it in the Scripture or in the Writings of Men. Answ By this it is plain he did not consider nor understand what my purpose was For it is as clear as the light at Noon day that my purpose was to shew that the Accuser of the Brethren who charged us with Novelty in calling the Gospel Covenant a new Law of Grace was grosly mistaken and that in confidently affirming against us that New Law of Grace is a New Word but of an Old and Ill meaning he bore false Witness against his Brethren and asserted a notorious falsehood in matter of Fact This was my purpose and design as manifestly appears from the Apology p. 24. And it being so I appeal to all Men of common sense and reason if they have but common honesty also whether it was not very much to my purpose to prove by Scripture and by Testimonies of Ancient Orthodox Christians and Modern Protestant Divines that Law and New Law of Grace applyed to and affirmed of the Gospel or Covenant of Grace were not new words of an old and ill meaning And yet I needed not eagerly to catch at the word Law for it occurs so frequently in Ancient Writings that a Man who reads them cannot avoid meeting with it it offers it self to him almost at every turn And now Mr. G. joyns with us against our Accuser and doth further prove him to have been grosly mistaken by shewing that New Law of Grace is not a new word but of an old ill meaning On the contrary he demonstrates it to be an old word but pretends that now amongst us it hath a new and ill meaning By this the People may see if they will but open their Eyes how well the Testimonies of our two Brethren against us do agree The first saith that New Law of Grace is a New Word of an old but ill meaning The Second who comes to defend him and enforce his Charge against us saith that New Law of Grace is an Old Word of a New but Ill meaning But it seems however contrary to one another their Testimonies are yet they must be both believed to be true against us For neither of these Brethren will confess that they were mi●taken and have done us wrong No they are both in the right tho' the one say That New Law of Grace is a New word of an old meaning and the other saith That it is an Old Word of a new meaning But it may be some will reply That they both agree at least that it is a word of an ill-meaning Answ True But 1. For all that agreement they yet refute one another For the first Accuser saith that the old meaning is ill but Reverend Mr. Goodwin maintains that the old meaning of the Word is good and pretends that the new only is ill 2. If these two Brethren do not agree about the word it self whether it be old or new but the one saith it is new and the other saith it is old and therefore one of them must needs be mistaken we have more reason to believe that they are mistaken about the meaning of the word and in saying that is a word of an ill meaning because it is much more difficult to know what is the true or false right or wrong meaning of a word then to know the word it self whether it be lately invented or hath been of very ancient usage in the Christian Church Remarks on the Second Chapter IN this Chapter he discourseth of the various signification of the word Law and affirms that the word Law in the Old Testament used for the Gospel signifies no more than a Doctrine To which I Answer 1. That I freely grant and never yet denyed that the word Law is capable of a various meaning nor did I in the Apology from the bare sound of the Word abstractly considered so much as seem to argue for one particular determinate Sense exclusive of all others I only say p. 22. that our Brethren should not dislike our calling the Gospel-Covenant a Law because the Scriptures of Truth call it so expresly And this Mr. Goodwin doth now confess to be true Likewise p. 24. from the Apostles calling it the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 and saying that it is of Faith that it might be by Grace Rom. 4.16 I argue that he hath in effect and by implication called it the Law of Grace And that therefore we are no Innovators in calling it so after him 2. Mr. G. can never prove that because the word Law is of a various signification and sometimes signifies a Doctrine that therefore when it is used for the Gospel it signifies nothing but a Speculative Doctrine or Narrative
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
it in the places cited by me that is enough to my purpose 2 If by no more than a Doctrine he understand no more than an absolute Promise or no more than a mere speculative Doctrine or Narrative that requires no Duty of us at all no not so much as to believe in Christ then I say that his Two Quotations out of Cyprian and Augustin do not prove that by the word Law they there meant no more than a Doctrine in that Sense For 1. By his own Confession Cyprian in his 63. Epistle of Goulartius his Edition calls our Saviours Instruction how to administer the Lords Supper an Evangelical Law but I hope he dare not say that our Saviours Instruction how to administer that Ordinance was nothing but an Absolute Promise or a mere Speculative Doctrine that obligeth Christians to no Duty Nay Cyprian himself as Quoted and Translated by Mr. Goodwin said that he was to send Epistles to his Brethren That the Evangelical Law and the declared Doctrine of our Lord might be observed and that the Brethren might not depart from what Christ had taught and practised This Evangelical Law then according to Blessed Cyprian is a Doctrine that was to be Observed and Practised according to Christs Institution and Example And consequently it was a positive Law that obliged to Duty 2. For Augustin if he tells us as Mr. G. says pag. 27. of his Discourse that by the word Law we may apprehend not merely a Statute but any other Doctrine because he styles not only the Five Books of Moses but the Prophets in whose Writings there are so many gracious Promises of the Gospel by that Name I answer That makes nothing against me For 1. When I called the Gospel a Law I never meant a mere Statute exclusive of Gracious Promises so far was I from such a meaning that I said expresly it is the Conditional part of the Covenant of Grace Apol. p. 22. That is it is that part which prescribes the Condition and graciously promises a Benefit for Christ's sake to the performer of the Condition Again I said expresly in page 33. that the Conditional Promise of Eternal Life to the Believer together with the prescription of the Condition of a Lively Faith is the very thing which Dr. Twiss and we after him call the Law according to which God proceeds c. 2 If the Prophets are styled by the Name of Law in whose Writings are so many gracious Promises of the Gospel together with Precepts obliging the Duty then may the Gospel it self without offence be termed a Law in which there are both Gracious Promises and Excellent Precepts Yet 3dly It is incumbent upon Mr. Goodwin to prove that in Augustin's Judgment or that in real Truth the Prophets are called by the Name of Law precisely because there are gracious Promises in them and not at all because there are many Excellent Divine Precepts in them Are there not Gracious Promises of the Gospel to be sound in the Five Books of Moses and yet I trow those Five Books are not called the Law precisely because of the Evangelical Promises that are in them and not because they contain the whole Sum of Legal Precepts given by Moses unto the People of Israel Augustin in his Fifteenth and last Book of the Trinity takes occasion from what he had said of Gods being called Love 1 John 4.16 to speak of the various acceptation of the word Law and says that sometimes it is taken more generally for all the Scriptures of the Old Testament or for the Prophets or Psalms and sometimes more specially and properly for the Law given at Sinai Now this doth not in the least militate against any thing I have said in the Apology For I can grant with Augustin that the word Law is sometimes used in a more general comprehensive Sense and at other times in a more special restrained Sense and yet consistently enough hold that the Gospel is called a Law in Scripture and that it is a Law of Grace Thus I have briefly shewed that this whole Chapter is Impertinent But though there be nothing in it to his purpose against me yet there is something in it to my purpose against him For page 26 27. of his Discourse he tells us That a Law is a Doctrine See also his Serm. on the Q. Death p. 7 8. which teacheth us what is best for us to do if we will be taught by the Counsel of those who are wiser than our selves And in this sense saith he I will easily grant the Gospel to be a Law for it is the instruction of God whose Wisdom is beyond all denyal infinitely superiour to ours to our perishing Souls c. Now if the Gospel be a Law in this sense then certainly it is a Practical Doctrine that obligeth us to Duty Doth not the Infinitely wise God his instructing us to believe in Christ for Justification oblige our Consciences to believe in him and hath it not the force and effect of a Law I bless God I own its obliging force and it is and I hope ever shall be a Law to me a Gracious Evangelical Law And I hope my R. Brother will in time do so likewise Since he saith that thrice Blessed is that Person whom Gods Enlightning Grace hath made so wise as to follow it Remarks on the Sixth Chapter SECTION I. Some Preliminary Considerations necessary for the right understanding of our Protestant Writers and the clear Answering of Mr. G 's Quotations from their Writings FOR the better clearing up of the matter in Controversie and scattering of the Mist which my R. Brother hath cast before Peoples Eyes in this Chapter it will be expedient to premise some things before I come to answer his Quotations from the Writings of Protestant Divines And First It is to be considered that the word Gospel signifying good or glad tydings it may be applyed to and affirmed of several parts of Supernatural Revealed Religion As 1. God's Eternal Decree to save for Christ's sake a Select Number of lost Sinners of Mankind as revealed in the Scriptures of Truth is Gospel for it is good and glad tydings to the visible Church 2. The absolute Prophecy and Promise to send Christ into the World to redeem Man and to seek and save that which is lost is Gospel also for it is good and glad tydings The like I say of Christ's being actually come into the World 3. The Absolute Promise to take away the Heart of Stone and to give an Heart of Flesh to give the Redeemed Saving Faith and Repentance is Gospel also since it is good and glad Tydings Now we never said that the Gospel in any of these Three Senses is a Law commanding us to do any Duty or perform any Condition But 4. The word Gospel in a more large and comprehensive Sense is taken for the Intire Covenant of Grace which God hath made with his Church through the Mediator his Son
Justification and Salvation calling them the Precepts of the Church when they are nothing less For a free Christian will say thus I will fast I will Pray I will do this and that which is Commanded by Men not that I need to do it for Justification or Salvation but that in doing it I may obey the Pope the Bishop such a Community and such a Magistrate or that I may give my Neighbour a good Example c. Thus Luther Now whether my R Brother have any occasion for this Doctrine he knows best himself it may be of some use to him the next time he Travels to Rome But for my self I declare I have no occasion for it nor do I ever intend to make use of it Mr Goodwin did well to tell the World that Luther wrote that Book before he had declared War against the Pope but then he might have been more sparing in his Praises of it and in urging Luther's Testimony therein against me and my Reverend Brethren since he was but newly crept out of the Monastery and had received but a small measure of Light when he wrote that Treatise And yet what is quoted out of it against me doth not advantage my R. Brother nor yet prejudice me and the Cause which I defend Though Luther was not without his failings as no Man is more or less yet he was really a great and good Man and I heartily bless God for the good that was in him and done by him and his testimony shall be alwayes respectfully received by me so far as I find it consonant to the Scriptures of Truth and to the Established Doctrine of our own better Reformed Church 4. In the fourth place Mr G. quotes the Excellent Melancthon again but to no purpose for I assent to all that Melancthon there writes Set aside the glosses of Mr. G and Melancthons own words do not prejudice my Cause at all And elsewhere Melancthon is clearly for me and holds as I do That the Gospel properly taken requires of us Faith and Repentance and promises Grace to enable us to believe and repent c. And I desire no more to prove the Gospel to be a Law of Grace in our sense of the word This I shall if the Lord will clearly prove from Melancthons own words in my Animadversions on Mr. G 's Seventh Chapter and then it will plainly appear that he doth but abuse Melancthon and the People too in thus indeavouring to make them believe that Melancthon was of his absurd Opinion 5. His next Witness against me is the famous Calvin but I fear no harm from him for I take him to be an honester Man than to contradict himself in Witness-bearing And I am sure he hath already borne Witness for us in the Apology and declared that he believed as we do that the Gospel-Covenant is Conditional and requires of Men both Faith and Repentance in order to the Pardon of their Sins and Salvation of their Souls See Apol. pag. 51.92 93 94 which is sufficient to prove that he held the Gospel to be a Law of Grace as we do And in the place which my R. Brother refers to and in the words which he quotes there is nothing but what is well consistent with what I most truely and faithfully cited both out of his Institutions and Commentaries And indeed what is here quoted by Mr. G. is very impertinently alledged against me For I do sincerely confess that to invest Christ with a new Legislative Power and to dignifie the Gospel with the title of a New Law in the Popish Sense of the Word is indeed a mere fiction and that those who go the Popish way have feigned Christ to be the Maker of an Evangelical Law which should have supplyed the defect even of the Moral Law given unto Israel by the hand of Moses But notwithstanding this it is as clear as the Light That Calvin did not believe the Gospel-Covenant to be nothing but a bundle of mere absolute Promises of Grace For besides what was quoted in the Apology Calvin in his Commentary on the Third of Jonah saith as followeth (h) Quoties veniam proponit Deus peccatoribus simul additur haec conditio ut resipiscant nec tamen sequitur poenitentiam esse causam impetrandae gratiae gratis enim se Deus offert neque aliunde inducitur quàm suâ liberalitate sed quia non vult homines abuti suâ indulgentia facilitate ideo legem illam apponit ut scilicet poeniteat ipsos vitae prioris in melius mutentur Calvin Comment in 3 Cap. Jonae As often as God proposeth or promiseth Pardon to Sinners together with the Proposal or Promise this Condition is added that they repent yet it doth not follow that Repentance is the cause of obtaining the Grace of Pardon for God offers himself freely nor is he induced thereunto by any other thing than his own liberality But because he will not have Men to abuse his Indulgence and readiness to forgive therefore he joyns that Law to his Promise to wit that Sinners repent of their former ill Life and be changed to the better Thus Calvin And this Repentance he affirms to be a part of the Sumof the Gospel Instit Lib. 3. Cap. 3. Sect. 19. as was shewed in the Apology pag. 95. Therefore my R B doth but abuse Calvin and wrest his words to a Sense he never meant notwithstanding the Commendation which he gives of him 6. Beza is brought to Witness against us but to as little purpose for I demonstrated from Beza his own express words in the Apology that he believed there is a Conditional Gospel-Covenant that Faith in Christ is the only receptive applicative Condition and yet that true Repentance is required as indispensably necessary in grown Persons in order to pardon of Sin And here I must rectifie what I said in the Apology pag. 95. That it may be and it would seem that Beza had some peculiar conceit That all Repentance of what kind soever is properly from the Law and but improperly from the Gospel because he said in his 20th Epistle That Contrition did not proporly proceed from the Gospel Now I confess that in so understanding Beza there I mistook his true meaning to my own disadvantage and my mistake arose from the word Contrition by which Beza meant nothing but what the Papists ordinarily call by the name of Attritio and that is a Legal Repentance which as Beza rightly observed proceeds not properly from the Gospel but from the Law But I thought that by the word Contrition he had meant what we commonly call Contrition from Psal 51.17 and which is a true Evangelical Repentance enjoyned by the Gospel But since I have learned from his other Writings that by the word Contrition he meant not an Evangelical but a Legal Repentance when in the latter part of that Epistle he said that Contrition is not properly from the Gospel but from the Law and by
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
did not mean any such thing as his words clearly and necessarily import Mr. G quotes a Sentence out of the same Disputation Thes 25. Where he says (n) Evangelium hoc modo non incommodè definiri potest Doctrina Divina qua arcanum Dei foedus de gratuita salute per Christum hominibus in peccatum lapsis annunciatur cum electis inchoatur ac conservatur ad ipsorum salutem Dei Servatoris gloriam Gomar Oper. Part. 3. Disp 14. Thes 25. The Gospel may not unfitly be defined this way It is a Divine Doctrine whereby the secret Covenant of God concerning free Salvation by Christ is declared unto Men fallen into sin and is begun with the Elect and conserved or continued unto their Salvation and the Glory of God their Saviour But this will not do my R. Brothers Business For 1. Gomarus here doth not pretend accurately and fully to define the Gospel and therefore he only says it may not unfitly be defined this way And one may well enough express himself thus when he is to give only a general Description which is an imperfect definition of a thing 2. This Description of the Gospel goes before in the 25th Position Whereas the Testimony quoted out of him in the Apology comes after in the 30th Position in which Gomarus designedly explains himself and adds what he had before omitted in his description of the Gospel Thes 25. and expresly asserts the Gospel to be a Law and a Law of Grace and gives his Reasons for both 3. Here then Gomarus did not in the least contradict himself only in Thes 30. he explained and expressed what he had supposed and implyed and added what he had omitted in Thes 25. 4. Here also Mr. G should have considered Gomarus his 29. Position which I quoted at large in the Apology pag. 100 but shall not here repeat it for he cannot but have seen it since it is immediately before the 30th which he pretends to Answer These things being duely considered it is as clear as the Light that my R Brother dealt very disingenuously not to use a worse word when he thus concluded pag. 34. of his Discourse Therefore when Gomarus a little after calls the Gospel a Law he must necessarily understand the word Gospel as it signifies all the second part of the Bible not as it implyes only God's Covenant of Grace discovered to Man This is so far from being true de facto that it is impossible it should be true And my R.B. who hath read the place if he knows any thing cannot but know that it is false For it is most evident from Gomarus his words both as they are in his own Works and as they are cited in the Apology p. 27. and 100. That the Gospel he speaks of is not the Book of the New Testament but it is the very Covenant of Grace it self both discovered unto and made with Man and recorded in the Books both of the Old and New Testament It is the Covenant which hath a condition in it prescribed to us and required of us Yea It is the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 It is the Law which goes forth out of Sion as he proves from Isa 2.3 And that Mr. G himself hath acknowledged to be the very Gospel in its strict and proper Sense How to excuse my R. B. here from being guilty of a known falsincation I profess I know not But whatever be of that sure I am that Gomarus his own words cannot bear that sence which he would force upon them And I appeal to Schollars and Judicious honest Men to judge between us and determine which of us two gives the genuine true Sense of those words of Gomarus which I quoted in the Apology p. 27 and 100. Twelfthly Mr. G to back the foresaid Misinterpretation of Gomarus his Words concerning the Nature of the Gospel-Covenant brings the Testimony of the Heavenly Host of Holy Angels recorded in Luke 2. ver 13 14. but this doth not move me in the least from my steadfast belief of the Gospel Covenant its being a Law of Grace For from the Angels Doxology in Luke 2. neither Man nor Angel can ever prove by good consequence that the Covenant of the Gospel is not a Law of Grace The Angels not saying expresly that it is a Law of Grace proves nothing For it was no part of their Commission to say that it is or that it is not What they said is true indeed ay and it is true Gospel too as was acknowledged before in our first preliminary consideration But what then It doth not follow that therefore it is the whole Gospel and intire Covenant of Grace which God made with his Church through Christ the Mediator And if it be not the whole as it is not then what they said and what Gomarus and I after him say that the Gospel is a Law of Grace may both be true and so they certainly are But it seems Mr. G thinks that God is not at peace with him nor with me nor with any other Man nor bears any good Will to him or us if by the Gospel he require Faith and Repentance of us in order to the Pardon of our Sins by and for the alone Righteousness of Christ the Mediator of the Covenant And if that be really his settled Thought his Case is to be pityed and I heartily pray God for Christ's sake to pity him and to deliver him from an evil heart of Unbelief That he may through Grace come to the knowledge of the Truth and be perswaded that God's being at peace with him and bearing good Will to him is very well consistent with the Gospel-Covenant its requiring of him Faith and Repentance As for his descant upon the words of the Angels it is nothing but a flourish of Words and Rhetorick without Reason makes no Impression upon the Wise whatever Effect it may have upon others Now my R Brother his Premisses being false as I have shewed them to be his Conclusion as such must be of the same Nature And so it is not true as he pretends but really false that God from Heaven and some of the best Men whoever lived upon Earth do plainly tell us that the Gospel is no Law but a pure Act of Grace for they do not tell us any such thing And to the Lords People it is both It is both a Law and also a pure Act of Grace it is a Law of Grace As for what he says in page 35 of his Discourse that our Reformers were careful to distinguish the Gospel from a Law It is false in his Sense they were not careful to distinguish it from all kind of Law but from a certain kind of Law that is from the Law of Works This indeed they were careful to do and so are we too And as they would not so no more do we suffer Works under never so specious pretences to invade the Prerogative of Grace In fine what Mr.
pag. 27. that the Gospel is sometimes called a Law because it also hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings It is also against Gomarus who as he is quoted in the same page 27 saith expresly That the Gospel is called the Law of Faith Rom. 3.27 and the Law of God by way of Excellency Isa 2.3 from the prescription or appointment of the Condition and Duty contained in it But let it be against them or against all Mortals yet if he did well and solidly prove these three things mentioned I should confess he doth his work effectually were it not for this one thing on which the stress of his Cause lyes and which he begs but proves not nor can prove to wit That the Gospel Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediator and that adequately or intirely considered in all its Articles is nothing but an Absolute Promise or a Bundle of Absolute Promises which require nothing of us at all For take the Gospel in this narrow Sense and I declare that I believe as firmly as he can do that it hath neither Precept nor Threatning nor Conditional Promise properly and essentially belonging to it But now I must again tell my Reverend Brother as I told him before That that is not the sense wherein I take it when I say it is a Law of Grace and I have shewed in the Apology that it ought not to be so taken nor is it so taken by our Protestant Divines when the word Gospel is used to signifie the whole Covenant of Grace which God hath made with us through Christ the Mediator Thus in few words it may appear that the main strength of his Cause lyes in the ambiguity of the word Gospel which certainly signifies more things than one and particularly it signifies more things than such a Doctrine of Grace as according to his fancy requires nothing of us at all And 1. First He asserts page 42. That the Precepts which the Gospel employs are not any parts of it self but are borrowed from the Law and then gives his goodly reasons for his assertion Before I give particular Answers to his reasons I will in the following Section premise some things that may give some light to help People to see on whose side the Truth lyes SECT II. AND with respect to his Notion of the Gospel Let it be considered 1. How the Gospel if it be nothing but an Absolute Promise that requires nothing can borrow Precepts from the Moral Law and then employ them in its own Service For mine own part I profess I neither do nor can understand how an Absolute Promise borrows a Precept and then employs it As he gives us to understand towards the end of the 42. page I understand well enough that Mr. Goodwin there insinuates and pag. 48. he expresly asserts this of the Gospels borrowing and employing the Laws Precepts And if any other Body can understand how a meer Absolute Promise doth this much good may the Notion do them But to me it is altogether useless because it is unintelligible 2. Consider That the Moral Natural Law is certainly most perfect in its kind and obliges to the most perfect i. e. sinlesly perfect performance of the several Duties that belong to it in that way which the Lord God intended it should oblige to the performance of them And it was needless to prove this against me for I never denyed it but alwayes believed it and oft times openly professed it And if my Reverend Brother understands what and whom he writes against he cannot but know that my R Brethren and I made Publick Profession of this to the World in the Printed Apology page 200 and 201. 3. Consider Thirdly That we must distinguish between the Moral Natural Law it s Obligative Power and its Actual Obligation And it is not to be denyed but that it hath its Obligative Power even then when for want of a particular Object or necessary Circumstances it doth not put forth its Power into Act and lay its Actual Obligation on a certain Subject For instance In the state of Innocency The Law had in it an Obligative Power unto several things which yet in that State it neither did nor could actually oblige our first Parents unto for want of a proper Object as to relieve the Poor when as yet there were none and to Educate their Children Religiously when as yet they had none 4. Consider Fourthly That the Moral Law either obliges absolutely and for the present or upon supposition and for the future which distinction differs not much from the former Thus in the State of Innocency the Law obliged Man absolutely and for that present time not to hate but to love God But it obliged him to love and relieve the Poor only for the future when there should be and on supposition that there should be Poor in the World 5 Consider Fifthly That the Moral Natural Law obliges to some Duties immediately and by it self but to others only mediately and by reason of some other thing intervening Thus in the State of Innocency by it self immediately it obliged Man not to hate but to love and reverence God But it then obliged him not to eat of the Forbidden Fruit only mediately and by reason of the positive Law which forbad it under pain of Death For it is certain and evident That without that positive Law forbidding it the Law of Nature by it self immediately would never have made it more unlawful to eat of that than of any other Fruit in the Garden of Eden It was therefore that positive Law forbidding it that first in order of Nature obliged Man not to eat of it and then by means of that positive Law the Law of Nature also came in and obliged Man not to eat of it The Law of Nature doth not Enact Divine Positive Laws for us but when they are Enacted by God and do oblige us by God's Authority Enacting them it then obliges us to the observance of them This it did before and still doth since the fall of our First Parents For the same reason holds with respect to all the positive Laws that ever God Enacted for Mankind 6. Consider Sixthly That God's Enacting some Positive Laws after he had given the Moral Natural Law unto Man in its full perfection doth not derogate any thing from the full perfection of the said Moral Law nor from the infinite Wisdom of God the Soveraign Law-giver And to say and write that for God to make any Positive New Law after he hath given unto Man the Moral Natural Law is inconsistent with the Moral Laws perfection and with Gods Infinite Wisdom is in effect both to dishonour Gods Law and to Blaspheme God's Majesty For it is a matter of Fact most certainly and evidently true that after the first giving unto Man and concreating with him and in him the Moral Natural Law God hath made and given to Man Positive Laws both before
of God's Will to Men. In Deuteronomy he left it thus written And the Lord said unto me I will raise them up a Prophet from among their Brethren like unto thee and I will put my Word in his Mouth and he shall speak unto them those things which I shall command him And whosoever shall not hear those things which that Prophet shall speak in my Name I will punish him for it God declared even by the Law giver himself that he would send his own Son that is a Living and Present Law and would abrogate that Old Law given by a Mortal Man that he might by him who should be Eternal again Confirm and Ratifie the Eternal Law Thus he and whoever is acquainted with the Writings of Lactantius may I think easily perceive that by the Eternal Law he meant the Everlasting Gospel or Covenant and Law of Grace which the Eternal Christ hath Confirmed and Ratified by his Blood shedding and Death This may appear yet clearer to some Persons from Matth. 17.5 And behold a Voice out of the Cloud which said This is my Beloved Son in whom I am well pleased hear ye him Where again We have 1. A Supernatural Revelation of Christ as the Son of God 2. We have a positive Command of God to hear him that is to believe on him and obey him as the word hear signifies according to the Hebrew idiom Now this Voice out of the Cloud was not the Voice of the Law of Nature but of the Father as such speaking by supernatural Revelation nor was this a Command of the Law of Nature but it was a positive Command of God as the Authour of Grace which positive Command recorded in Scripture is to us Christians a positive Law whatever it be to Unbelievers It is a positive Law which obliges us to Faith in Christ by the Evidence of Supernatural Revelation applying the Veracity and Authority of God to our Consciences Such it was to Melancthon one of our first Reformers who often hath recourse to it as a Command of the Gospel distinct from the Natural Moral Law Particularly he hath recourse to it twice in his Answer to the 22th Article of the Bavarian Inquisition And as the foresaid Supernatural Revelations carryed in them a Positive Command expresly so the first obscurer Revelation of that kind that the Seed of the Woman should bruise the Serpents Head Gen. 3.15 implyed the like Positive Command to believe in Christ to come though it be not so express in the first Written Record as it is conveyed down to us We have no ground to believe that God said not one word more to our First Parents after the Fall than what we find expresly written in the Third of Genesis And suppose he did not say one word more as on the other hand no Man can prove that he did Yet there is a Promise of Mercy to be shewed unto Fallen Man by means of the Seed of the Woman as is confest Now Melancthon has told us as he was quoted before That (m) Quoties igitur de misericordiâ dicitur intelligendum est fidem requiri Melanct. Apol. og pro Aug. Confess p. 116. As often as there is mention made of Mercy to wit saving Mercy by Christ we must understand that Faith is required But I insist not on that It is sufficient to our purpose that we now have a Supernatural clear Revelation of Christ See Acts 16.31 with a clear express positive Command to believe on him and that distinct from the Natural Moral Law And this express positive Command Hear ye him believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved is to us an Evangelical Law which hath more Power over our Consciences than Ten Thousand such little Sophismes set off with a Rhetorical Flourish of Words as are offered us to prove That we are not obliged to believe in Christ for Justification and Salvation by the Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace but only by the Natural Moral Law Thirdly As the Opinion under Consideration is not true because contrary to plain Scripture so it is of worse consequence to Religion than my Reverend Brother seems to be aware of For if there be no Positive Law in the Gospel distinct from the Natural Law which obliges us to Faith in Christ because if there were then the Natural Moral Law would not be perfect and prescribe all Duty nor would God be Infinitely Wise it follows by the same reason that there is no positive Law at all which obligeth us to any other Duty and indeed by this Flacian Opinion he plainly overthrows all Positive Laws and therewith all Instituted Worship And he is mistaken if he think to prevent and remedy this by reducing all to the Natural Moral Law For 1. If there be no Positive Law at all then it can never be reduced to the Natural Moral Law For a thing that is not at all cannot be reduced to a thing that really is 2. The Natural Moral Law would never oblige us to any the least part of Positive Instituted Worship if we were not first in order of Nature obliged to it by the positive Will of God instituting it and by the Institution it self immediately obliging us to the observance of it Once take away the Obligation that arises immediately from the positive Institution and the Law of Nature the Moral Natural Law will never take hold of our Consciences to oblige us thereunto For it is by means of the Special Positive Law that the General Natural Law obliges to such and such particular kind of things which fall not under the Commands of the general Natural Law Is it not very evident that though Adam before he sinned had the Moral Natural Law in its full perfection yet it would never have obliged his Conscience to forbear Eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil more than any other Fruit in the Garden of Eden If to the General Natural Law God had not super-added a particular positive Law forbidding him under pain of Death to eat of the Fruit of that Tree So that it was this New Positive Law which first obliged him not to eat of it and then by Vertue of that The Moral Natural Law strictly obliged him likewise not to eat of it And this holds Universally with respect to every thing that depends on the Arbitrary Will of God to make it our Duty or not It is his Positive Law signifying his Will and Pleasure that first obliges us and then by vertue thereof God's General Natural Law obliges us also and not otherwise So that upon this absurd Principle if it should prevail amongst us we must all turn Seventh day-Men and Quakers for we shall never be able to prove by any or all of the Ten Commandments without a Positive Law expresly or implicitly instituting them and still in force That the First Day of the Week is the Christian Sabbath That we ought to be Baptized
And it is observable that here Repentance is required in the first place and then Pardon is promised as a great favour which shall follow after For the Promise runs in the Future Tense the Lord will have Mercy upon the wicked Man who hath truly repented and our God will abundantly pardon him He will pardon him all the Sins whereof he hath truly repented how many soever they have been And as John Baptist our Lord himself and his Apostles began their Preaching of the Gospel with the Preaching of Repentance so when our Lord Christ after his Resurrection enlarged the Apostles Commission and sent them to preach the Gospel to the Gentile World he told them that they must preach Repentance and Remission of Sin in his Name among all Nations beginning at Jerusalem Luke 24.47 So that it was a part of their Commission to preach the Gospel that they should preach Repentance as a means to obtain Remission of Sins through Faith in Christs name And it is certain that they acted according to their Commission Peter led the way and in his first Sermon after they were endued with Power from on high he said to the convinced humbled Jews who asked him and the rest of the Apostles what they should do That they should repent and be baptized every one of them in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins Acts 2.37 38. Those Jews were deeply convinced that they had broken the Law and thereby fallen under its curse and destroyed their own Souls so that it was not then time to preach the Old Law of Works to them nor did Peter preach it then to them but he preached the Gospel-Covenant and New Law of Grace to them saying as before mentioned Repent c. for the remission of sins And by that first Gospel-Sermon he converted about Three Thousand Souls And as he began so he continued to do for his next publick Sermon to the people was of the same strain with the first for after he and his Brethren had born their Testimony to Christs Resurrection and by his Resurrection and the Miracle done in his Name had proved him to be indeed the true Christ whom God promised to send into the World for the Redemption of his People And likewise after he had charged them with and proved them guilty of the murder of Christ and had shewed that by ignorantly murdering Jesus of Nazareth they had unwittingly fulfilled the many Prophesies which foretold the sufferings of Christ for the Salvation of his People he immediately commanded and exhorted them to repent and be converted as the means to obtain the Pardon of their Sins and Salvation of their Souls Acts 3.19 Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And here by the way we may take notice that the antient Syriack Interpreter renders this place thus Repent therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out and that the times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 See Act. 15.17 After the same manner it is rendred in the Tigurin Translation Irenaeus also a very Antient Father and Martyr above Fourteen Hundred Years ago thus quotes this Scripture (o) Poenitentiam igitur agite convertimini uti deleantur peccata vestra veniant vobis tempora refrigerii Domini Iren. lib. 3. adversus haereses cap. 12. Repent therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out and that the times of the Lords refreshing may come unto you So Irenaeus But I lay not the stress of my Argument on that Old Translation for our own Translation is sufficient to my purpose since it plainly shews That the Gospel prescribes Repentance unto Sinners as a means to prepare and dispose them for obtaining the Pardon of their Sins which the Natural Moral Law by it self immediately doth not do but only requires a Natural Legal Repentance such as is before described and that Men should so sin no more for time to come but doth not ordain it to be a means nor require it as a means to obtain pardon nor yet ensure pardon to it through Christ as such a means And as Peter led the way in preaching the Gospel by preaching Repentance as a means to obtain pardon of Sin so the other Apostles followed according to the Commission which they all received from the Lord himself Paul as was shewn in the Apology was sent to the Gentiles to open their eyes and to turn them from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God that they might receive forgiveness of sins c. Acts 26.17 18. And he was faithful to the Lord who sent him and approved himself so to be by testifying both to the Jews and also to the Greeks Repentance towards God and Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ Acts 20.20 21. And the end in order to which he preached up the use of these means of Faith and Repentance was that people might receive forgiveness of Sins And if that was not Gospel-preaching how can it be proved that ever there was such a thing as Gospel-preaching in the World and that Paul was faithful to God and the Souls of Men in preaching the Gospel since Repentance towards God and Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ and that too in order to pardon of Sin to Justification and Salvation were the two great heads of Doctrine that he mainly insisted upon as evidently appears from Acts 26.17 18 19 20 c. compared with Acts 20.20 21. And that the other Apostles preached the same Gospel in the same way and to the same end it is needless to go about to prove it since they had all one Commission and were all faithful in preaching according to their Commission Now as this was Gospel in the days of the Apostles so it hath been and still is and ever will be Gospel to the end of the World For Christs Gospel is an everlasting Gospel and in all Ages hath been preserved and continued in the Church and hath been preached as to the sum and substance of it by certain faithful Ministers of Christ in all Ages Lactantius of old gave this as a mark to know the true Church by (o) Sciendum est illam esse veram Ecclesiam Catholicam in quâ est confessio poenitentia quae peccata vulnera quibus subjecta est imbecillitas carnis salubriter curat Lactant Divin Instit lib. 4. cap. 30. We must know saith he that that is the true Catholick Church in which is Confession and Repentance which wholesomely cures the sins and wounds to which the weakness of the flesh is subject Here is nothing for Popish Merits and Satisfactions for his words signifie no more but this that Confession and Repentance is a wholesome means used in the true Church according to the Gospel 1 John 1.9 for obtaining
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
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
is impossible to be done by any power whatsoever which is even impossible to be done by the help of his Spirit and Grace But the Conditional Promise of our Saviour in John 8.51 is of another Nature it is not merely oeconomical but real and intentional really requiring the condition and obliging Men to keep his saying and intentionally promising unto all who do or shall keep his saying that they shall never see Death This plainly appears from the double asseveration wherewith our Saviour spoke the foresaid Promise saying Verily verily I say unto you if a man keep my saying be shall never see doath Whence I conclude that the Gospel is not without all Precepts for here is implyed a Precept to keep Christs saying A Third Tellimony we have in Rom. 10.8 9 10. That is the Word of Faith which we preach that 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 for with the Heart Man believeth unto Righteousness and with the Mouth confession is made unto Salvation Observe here 1 That by the Word of Faith is meant the Gospel which according to the Dutch Annotations on the place is so called because by it we are exhorted and brought to Faith 2. Observe that besides Faith in the Heart which is required unto Righteousness and Justification there is here required Confession with the Mouth as necessary to the obtaining of consummate Salvation And by Confession with the Mouth is meant an outward Profession of the inward Faith of the Heart and living suirable to our holy Profession Hence Mr. Ma●o in the last English Annotatiens on Rom. 10.9 saith There are but these two things which the Gospel principally requires in order to our Salvation The one is the Confession of Christ with our Mouths and that in spight of all Persecution and Danger to own him for our Lord and for our Jesus and to declare that we are and will be ruled and saved by him and by him only The other is to believe in our Hearts that God hath raisod him from the Dead Whence I conclude again that the Gospel is not without all Precepts for it hath besides the Precept of believing on Christ with the Heart another Principal Precept of confessing him with the Mouth that is of living suitably to our Faith A Fourth Testimony to prove that the Gospel hath Precepts we have in those places of the New Testament where some are commended for their obeying and being subject to the Gospel and others are blamed and threatned for their disobeying the Gospel 1. We find that some are commended for obeying the Gospel and being subject to it Thus the believing Romans are commended for obeying the Gospel Rom. 6.17 God be thanked that ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you This form of Doctrine is the Gospel as the Dutch Annotation on the place tells us saying expresly that the Gospel is a Doctrine of Godliness and Righteousiness And Paul gave God thanks for this that the believing Romans had from the Heart obeyed it Which they could never have done if the Gospel Doctrine had had no Precept requiring their Obedience For speaking of a Doctrine Precept and Obedience are relative one to another so that take away the Precept of a Doctrine and you take away the possibility of Obedience to that Doctrine which hath no Precept On the other hand if we once grant that there is such a thing as Obedience to the Doctrine of the Gospel we must by consequence grant also that the Doctrine of the Gospel hath some Precept which requires that Obedience otherwise it can be no Obedience to that Doctrine Again in 2 Cor. 9.13 we read that the Saints glorified God for the believing Corinthians their professed subjection unto the Gospel of Christ Now it is unconceivable how they could be subject to the Gospel if it had no preceptive commanding Authority over their Consciences For Subjection is relative unto and presupposes a superiour commanding Authority in that whereunto there is Subjection This common sense teaches us But so it is that the Corinthians were subject to the Gospel and therefore the Gospel is not without all Precepts but it had a preceptive commanding Authority over them to which they were subject 2. We find that others are blamed and threatned for not obeying the Gospel Rom. 10.16 They have not all obeyed the gospel 1 Pet. 4.17 What shall the end be of them that obey not the Gospel of God And 2 Thess 1.7 8. The Lord shall take vengeance on them that know not God and obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ But now according to the principle of the Flacian Sectaries that the Gospel hath no Precept there could be no such thing as disobedience to the Gospel For where there is no Gospel Law or Precept there can be no Transgression against the Gospel This one of the Brethren who was for that way plainly saw and granting the consequence declared it to the World in Print Dansons Confer p. 18. that he and his Party knew no Sins against the Gospel And indeed if the Gospel had no Precept there could be no Sin against it But the Apostles Paul and Peter tell us expresly that there is such a thing as not obeying the Gospel and that persons who obey it not shall be severely punished for their disobedience And if so then surely their disobeying the Gospel is a Sin against the Gospel whence it follows by necessary consequence that the Gospel hath some Precept which was to be demonstrated And if it be said that the Moral Law commands Obedience to the Gospel I answer be it so that is so far from weakening that it rather strengthens the Argument For if it command Obedience to the Gospel then it commands Obedience to the Precept of the Gospel for without the Gospels having some Precept there might indeed be Obedience to the Law in other things but there could be no Obedience to the Gospel at all nor could there be Obedience to the Law in that matter because upon that false supposition the Law should command a Chimerical impossibility which is absurd to affirm of the Just Law of the infinitely Wise God Therefore from the Moral Law its obliging us to obey the Gospel it necessarily follows that the Gospel hath some Precept to be obeyed A Fifth Testimony we have in Tit. 2.11 12. where it is written that The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men teaching us that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts we should live soberly righteously and godly in this present world In this Scripture we are to observe two things 1. What is meant by the Grace of God which bringeth Salvation and which hath appeared unto all Men or which bringeth Salvation unto all Men and hath appeared And it is generally confessed to be objective Grace
or the doctrine of Grace that is the Gospel 2. What is this Grace this Doctrine of Grace of Gospel said to do And that the express words of the 12 verse tell us plainly to be this that it teacheth us That d●nying ungodliness and worldly lucts we should live soberly righteously and godly in this present World Now if the Gospel teach us that we should live soberly righteously and godly then it hath some Precept which makes it our Duty so to live For to teach us that we should live soberly righteously and godly is plainly to lay an obligation on our Conscience and to make it our Duty so to live especially considering that this Gospel is the Gospel of God and it is God who is infinitely superiour to us and hath a soveraign authority over us who by the Gospel teacheth us that we should live soberly righteously and godly Gods teaching us that we should do a thing certainly obliges to do it and therefore Gods teaching us by the Gospel that we should live soberly righteously and godly obliges us by the Gospel so to live and consequently the Gospel hath some Precept whereby God obligeth us to live soberly righteously and godly in this present World Thus the Learned Divines who were Authorized by their Superiours in Holland to write the Dutch Annotations on the Bible understood this Scripture as appears from their Annotation on Tit. 1.1 The truth which is according to godliness That is which is such that it must not only be known but also by exercising of true Godliness be put in practice and which prescribes and requires true Godliness and stirs up and brings men thereunto 1 Tim 6 3. compared with Annotation on Tit. 2.11 The grace of God which bringeth salvation that is say they The Doctrine of the Grace of god shewn us by Christ and contained in the Gospel And then in their Annotation on the 12th Verse they tell us That the said Doctrine of Grace instructeth us that we should live soberly in respect of our selves and justly in respect of our Neighbour and godly in respect of God And if any yet doubt whether those Learned Annotators held that the Gospel hath Precepts obliging us to Duty let such read their Annotation on Rom. 10.6 where they expresly mention the Command of Faith as a Command of the Gospel contradistinguished from the Commands of the Law And again a little after they say If Moses said this of the Commandments of the Law much more may the same be said of the Promises and Commands of the Gospel which are not only easie to be understood as the Law is but also are easie to observe by the power of Gods Spirit c. See also the last called Pools Annotations on Tit. 2.11 12. where they tell us That by the Grace of God which brings Salvation is meant the Gospel of our Lord Jesus and that where it cometh it directs all Men their Duties in their several stations and teaches us that we should live with respect to our selves in a just government of our Affections and Passions and with respect to others giving to every one their due and with respect to God piously discharging the Duties and paying the homage we owe unto him so long as we live in this World where we have Temptations to the contrary Now if the Gospel as it is a Doctrine of Grace direct us to our several Duties and teach us that we should live as aforesaid then undoubtedly it hath Precepts as well as Promises for without some Precepts it cannot direct our Duties and teach us that we should live soberly righteously and godly in this present World I hope the R. Brother with whom I have to do will not flee to the Popish distinction between Precepts and Counsels and then say that the Gospel teacheth us that we should live as is said not by Precept but by Counsel For he hath himself stopt that passage into the Popish Camp by what he hath published to the World in his Sermon on the Death of the Late Queen where he thus writes The greatness of God gives Authority to his Counsel Mr. Goodwins Sermon on the Death of the Queen pa. 7 8. We readily hearken to those who are above us and every word which they speak carries a weight in it and is forcibly impressed on our minds If a Friend adviseth us to what we apprehend may be an advantage we chearfully receive and follow his Counsel but the direction of a Superiour is a Command and adds the obligation of Duty to the consideration of our own benefit God then who is the greatest above all may very well guide all by his Counsel and it is not more a Duty than a Priviledge to observe the measures of his conduct Thus he And by this he hath left no room for the distinction between the Lords Advioe and Counsel on the one hand and his Precept and Command on the other So that if the Lords Gospel direct and teach us our Duty by Advice and Counsel it doth it also by Precept and Command since the Lords Advice and Counsel ought to be unto us a Precept and Command The Sixth and last Testimony out of the New Testament which I shall alledge to this purpose at present is in Rev. 14.6 7. where it is written I saw another Angel fly in the midst of Heaven having the Everlasting Gospel to preach unto them who dwell on the Earth saying with a loud voice fear God and give glory to him and worship him that made Heaven and Earth and the Sea and the Fountains of Waters This Scripture I quoted in the Apology on the Margent pag. 23. but the Answerer passed it over but for all that it stands still in the Bible as a Witness against those who say that the Gospel hath no Precept For it is evident from the words of the Text that the Moral Law the First Commandment of it and by consequence the other Commandments of the Moral Law are taken into the Gospel so as that sincere Evangelical Obedience to them is made one Article of the Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace with respect to the obtaining possession of Salvation consummate in Heavenly Glory For the First Commandment of the Moral Law obliges us to fear God and give glory to him and to worship him who made the World if then this first Command be not taken into the Gospel-Covenant and sincere Obedience to it made one Article thereof none could preach the Everlasting Gospel to the Inhabitants of the Earth by saying Fear God and give glory to him and worship him that made the heavens and the earth c. But so it is that the Angel was represented in the Vision to John preaching the Everlasting Gospel and saying with a loud voice Fear God and give glory to him c. Therefore that Command to fear God and give glory to him c. is taken into the Gospel so as that sincere Obedience to
Discipuli non Magistro sed Deo monente diffusi Praecepta in salutem dare c Cyprian lib. de Idolorum vanitate Edit Oxon cum Minutii Felicis Octavio An. 1678. That Christ appeared and made himself known to his Apostles after his Resurrection and stay'd with them Forty days that they might be instructed by him and learn of him Vital Precepts which they might teach and that the Disciples being dispersed throughout the World by the order not of a meer Master but of God they gave forth Precepts unto Men for their Salvation Thus Cyprian Now by those Vital Precepts of which he speaks which lead Men to Salvation cannot be meant the Precepts of the Old Law and Covenant of Works as such for they are not Vital but rather Mortal to Sinful Men It is indeed through Mens own fault that they are not Vital but Mortal to them but however yet it is true that they are Mortal and not Vital They are a killing Letter 2 Cor. 3.6 They must then be the Precepts of the Gospel and Law of Grace which though for the most part they are materially the same with yet they formally differ from the Precepts of the Old Covenant and Law of Works for as they are the Precepts of the New Covenant and Law of Grace they come under a New Form and Sanction and become Vital and Saving both by the Ordination of God in Christ and also by the Grace of the Spirit promised in the New Law or Covenant of Grace My Fourth Witness is Ambrose who on the 119. Psal ver 156. saith (l) Evangelium non solum fidei Doctrina sed etiam est morum Magisterium speculum justae conversationis Amb. Serm. 20. in Ps 118. alias 119. Edit Paris 1614. Col. 1068. The Gospel is not only a Doctrine of Faith but it is also an Authoritative Instruction or Law of Manners and a glass of just Conversation And again in the Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans chap 3. ver last he or Hil. Diac. writes thus (m) Et quia lege Moysi cessante meliora praecepta daturus erat Deus Jeremiah Propheta cecinit dicens ecce dies venient dicit Dominus consummabo Domini Israel c. His utique qui venientem Christum ex promissione receperunt c. Idem Ambros vel potius Hil. Diaconus Comment in Epist ad Rom. ad versum ult cap. 3. And because the Law of Moses ceasing God was to give better Precepts Jeremiah the Prophet sung saying Behold the days shall come saith the Lord that I will make a New Covenant with the House of Israel c. that is with those who received Christ when he came according to promise Now these better Precepts which Ambrose or Hilary saith God was to give when the Levitical Law was to be Abrogated were no other in his Opinion than the Precepts of the New Covenant and Law of Grace as manifestly appears by his proving his Assertion out of Jerem. 31.31 where the Lord foretold his making of a New Covenant with the House of Israel c. And that Authour might well call them better Precepts both in respect of their perspicuity as more fully and clearly explained by Christ and also in respect of their Efficacy as accompanyed with a greater measure of the Grace of the Holy Spirit Jer. 31.33 with Heb. 8.9 10. He might likewise so call them with respect to the positive Institutions of the Gospel My Fifth Witness is Chrysostom who saith that (n) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Homil. 1. in Cap. 1. Matth. ex Edit Commel An. 1617. One of the Capital Fundamental Points of our Religion in which our Life consists and which comprehend the Sum of our Preaching is that Christ gave to his Church saving Precepts He is discoursing there of the Harmony of the Four Evangelists and after what he had said of that matter he subjoyns a Request that we would diligently consider and observe that in the Capital Points of our Christian Religion wherein the Life of our Souls consists and which comprehend the Sum of Ministers Preaching there is not the least disagreement amongst the four Evangelists And then to the question Which are those Capital Essential Points of our Religion He Answers That they are these following to wit That God was Incarnate that he wrought Miracles that he was Crucified that he was Buryed that he rose again from the Dead that he ascended into Heaven that he will judge the World that he gave Saving Precepts that he did not introduce a Law contrary to the Old Testament That he is the Son that he is the only begotten Son that he is the true genuine Son that he is of the same Essence with the Father and as many points as there are of the like nature and then he asserts that in all these Points there is the greatest Harmony and Agreement of the Four Evangelists By this we see that Chrysostom held it to be a Capital Fundamental Article of the Christian Religion that Christ hath given Saving Precepts to his Church and consequently that the Gospel-Covenant hath Precepts For the Precepts of the First Old Covenant and Law of Works as such cannot now be saving to Sinners such as all Men are therefore the Precepts which are now saving to Mens Souls must be the Precepts of the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace which as we Christians have it is not contrary to it self as it obtained in the Church before the coming of Christ for it always had Saving Precepts and as we heard before out of Ireneus the Principal Precepts were the same under the Old Legal which they are now under the New Evangelical Administration of the Covenant of Life And yet we must not think that the Precepts of the Gospel are saving because we are Justifyed by and for Obedience to them for as Chrysostom observes on Rom. 3.27 28. The Lord Justifies Men (o) Chrysost Homil. 7. in Cap. 3. Epist ad Romanos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not at all needing Works but requiring Faith only The Lords Gospel-Precept then requires Faith and only Faith as the Instrumental means or Receptive Applicative Condition of our Justification But our observance of the other Gospel-Precepts is required to other Gospel-ends and purposes and the Precepts themselves are Saving as they are taken into the Gospel Covenant and as Sincere Obedience to them through Grace prepares and disposes us for the full enjoyment of Eternal Life and Glory according to the Promises of the Gospel I might be large in demonstrating that Chrysostom is for Gospel Precepts and a New Law of Grace which hath both Precepts and Promises And indeed he sometimes carryes the matter further than I can approve of But however he is Orthodox in the thing under present consideration that the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace hath Saving Precepts This is so certain and evident that no sincere honest Man who reads and understands but his
our purpose to transcribe here some things out of the Ninth Book of a Work of Theodoret which he Entitled Concerning the curing of the Affections and Prejudices of the Greeks or Heathens For thus that most Learned Bishop writes Those our Fishermen and Publicans and that our Tent-Maker brought the Gospel-Law into all Nations c. By this and more which he hath there to this purpose it is most evident that Bibliander there speaks of Christ not simply as God but as Mediatorial King and Judge and as such a King and Judge giving and executing Laws which could be no other but the Laws of the New Covenant or Gospel and so Theodoret calls them My Second Witness is the Famous and Learned Zach. Ursin's Sum of Christian Religion in English Printed at London An. 1645 pag. 2. ibid. pag. 126. ib. p. 125 127. Vrsinus mentioned before His words are The Law promiseth Life with Condition of perfect Obedience the Gospel promiseth the same Life on condition of our stedsast Faith in Christ and the inchoation or beginning of New Obedience unto God Again The Old and New Covenant i.e. the same Covenant of Grace in its Old and New manner of Administration agree in this that in both God requires of Men Faith and Obedience Walk before me and be thou perfect Gen. 17.1 And repent and believe the Gospel Mark 1.15 And again They differ 7. In their Bond or manner of Binding The Old Covenant bound them to the sincere Obedience of the whole Mosaical Law Moral Ceremonial and Civil The New bindeth us only to the Moral or Spiritual Law and to the use of the Sacraments And a little after he saith The New Testament or Covenant is for the most part taken for the Gespel This is one of the Resormed Divines whom Mr. Goodwin quotes against me But let any Man read and consider what I have quoted here out of Vrsin and what follows in pag. 131. of which I quoted some part before and I dare refer it to his own Conscience if he have any whether Vrsin be of that Opinion that the Gospel hath no Precepts but is a meer Absolute Promise or Narrative which requires no Duty of us at all Nay I appeal to the Conscience of my Brethren whether Vrsin was not so far from being of that Opinion that on the contrary he says it was the Opinion of the Flacian Sectaries which he zealously refutes as is manifest from what I cited out of him before and from what he says more ibid. p. 131. in the same place My Third Witness is Polanus who writes thus (u) Foedus gratiae est in quo Deus nobis promittit se fore Deum nostrum gratis propter Christum Nos vero vicissim obligati sumus ut Dei popul 〈◊〉 simus 20. Capita sive Articuli ejus duo sunt unum ex parte Dei Alterum ex nostra parte 21. Ex parte Dei est gratuita promissio qua Deus nobis pollicetur se Deum nostrum sore c. 28. Alterum caput foederis est ex nostra parte obligatio qua Deus nos sibi obstrinxit ut ipsi populus simus 29. Dei populum esse est ambulare coram Deo cum integritate Gen 17.1 seu vivere sub oculis Dei ut bonos liberos decet 30. Quod fit viva in Deum side obedientiâ legis c. Amand. Polan Syllog Thes Theolog. contra Bellarm. Part. 2. De Foedere inter Deum homines Thes 19 20 21 28 29 30. pag. 174 175 176. The Covenant of Grace is that wherein God promiseth to us that he will be our God freely for Christ's sake And we again are obliged to be his People The Heads or Articles of it are two One on Gods part the other on our part On God's part it is a Free Promise whereby God promiseth to us to be our God c. The other Head or Article of the Covenant it is an Obligation on our part whereby God hath bound us to himself to be his People To be the People of God is to walk before God with Integrity Gen. 17.1 Or to live under the Eyes of God as becometh good Children which is done by a lively Faith in God and observance of his Law Thus Polanus whereby it manifestly appears that he believed as we do that the Gospel or Covenant of Grace hath Precepts and requires Duty My fourth Witness is Melancthon who long before Polanus taught this Doctrine that the Moral Law is so grafted into the Gospel-Covenant or Law of Grace that sincere Obedience to it is made one Article of the Gospel Covenant His words are (x) Vt in multis Naturae partibus admirandae imagines magnarum reium sunt propositae Sic mirifica est amiciria in naturâ quasi mutuum ●edus inter oleam vitem Non solum incolumis manet vitis si inseratur oleae sed etiam novas 〈◊〉 accipir tum uvas tum olivas gignit seu uvas pariter uvarum olivarum japore ●referen●es Imago illustris est Oleae id est Evangelio insita Legis doctrina fit mitior Sic enin demum ●choatur obedientia placet Deo cum Evangelio insita est Phil. Melanct. in orat de sympath ●om 4. declam 210. As in many parts of nature there are proposed admirable images or representations of great things so there is a wonderful friendship in nature and as it were a mutual Covenant between the Olive and Vinetrees For if the Vine be grafted into the Olivetree it not only remains safe and lives but it also receives new strength and brings forth both Grapes and Olives or Grapes which have the savour and taste both of Grapes and Olives It is an illustrious or clear image and representation The Doctrine of the Law being ingrafted in o the Olivetree that is into the Gospel it becomes milder For so it is that then Obedience is begun and pleaseth God when it is ingrafted into the Gospel Thus Melancthon shews by an elegant similitude how the Moral Law is taken into the Gospel-Covenant whereby it is otherwise modified than it was as it pertained to the first Covenant of Works and comes under a new form and sanction by which means our Obedience to the Moral Law is accepted as pleasing to God through Christ if it be sincere tho' it be imperfect Let those who have the Book see what Christopher Pezelius saith upon this I will quote a few of his words (y) Lex per se nihil novit vel de merito vel de efficaciâ Filii Dei de beneficiis Spiritus sancti qui essunditur in corda credentium per Christum Nihil igitur expresse docet de Auxilio quomodo fiant in nobis bona opera Deinde semper immutabiliter Lex requirit integram Obedientiam ab omnibus sine discrimine renatis non renatis damnat immutabiliter non habentes integram obedientiam
at Evangelium non modo auxilium nobis promittit sed quantum ad renatos pertinet hanc etiam dulcissimam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adhibet quod sicut persona gratis recipitur propter Christum sic Obedientia inchoata quanquam imperfecta contaminata placeat in reconciliatis fide propter Mediatorem Haec doctrina Evangelii nisi addatur Praeceptis legalibus quae repetuntur enarrantur atque etiam sanciuntur necessario immutabiliter in Concionibus Evangelicis erit doctrina bonorum operum non modo manca mu ila sed etiam i●utilis c. Quart par objectionum resp Theolog. quae sunt collectae ex scriptis Melanct. opera Christoph Pezelii Edit Neapoli Nem. An. 1582. p. 167 168. The Law of it self knows nothing either of the merit or efficacy of the Son of God and of the benefits of the Holy Spirit which by Christ is poured out into the hearts of Believers Nothing therefore doth it expresly teach of the help by which and of the way how good works are wrought in us Moreover the Law doth always and immutably require perfect Obedience of all without discrimination regenerate and unregenerate and of it self immutably damns all that have not that perfect Obedience But the Gospel not only promiseth us help but as for the regenerate with respect to them it mitigates the severity of the Law with this sweet temper and moderation that as the person is freely received into favour for Christs sake so the begun Obedience though imperfect and polluted yet is pleasing to God in persons reconciled through Faith for the Mediators sake This Doctrine of the Gospel unless it be added to the Legal Precepts which are both repeated and preached and also are brought under a sanction and confirmed necessarily and immutably in Gospel Sermons the doctrine of good Works will not only be lame and maimed but it will also be unprofitable c. Thus Pezelius shews the difference between the Law Precepts as fortified with the sanction of the first Law of Works and the same Precepts as they are brought under a new sanction and have put on a new form in the Gospel In this last sense the Precepts of the Moral Law belong to the New Covenant and are Precepts of the Gospel Yea the same Pezelius in the same Book hath demonstrated at large against the Flacians that over and beside the Precepts of the Moral Law which are now Evangelized the Gospel hath some Precepts which are proper to it self and require Evangelical Faith and Repentance which the Moral Law by it self immediately doth not require at all Some of his words are (z) At nihil cum hoc somnio commune habet dicere in Evangelio mandatum peculiare esse non patefactum in lege viz. de side in Christum cum qua pugnat incredulitas in Filium Mediatorem In lege fidei i.e. doctrinâ Evangelii non tantùm est promissio gratuita misericordiae Dei propter Filium Mediatorem sed etiam mandatum quod praecipit ut agnoscamus Mediatorem credamus illi promissioni Hoc praeceptum toto genere differt a praeceptis legalibus quae concionantur de Morali Obedientiâ Ac ut Puerile esset ex eo quod Lex Promissiones habet inferre quia Evangelium a lege differat non esse ullam Promissionem assignandam Evangelio sic ingens stupor est sic argumentari Lex habet Mandata ergo nullum peculiare Mandatum assignandum est Evangelio ne videatur introduci Lex nova seu Lex Evangelica c. Idem in codem libro pag. 152 153. But it hath nothing common with this Popish dream concerning a new Law in their sense to say that in the Gospel there is a peculiar Precept not revealed in the Law to wit concerning Faith in Christ to which is repugnant not believing in the Son the Mediator In the Law of Faith that is in the Doctrine of the Gospel there is not only a gracious promise of the mercy of God for the sake of the Son the Mediator but there is a Precept which commands us to acknowledge the Mediator and believe that promise This Precept in its whole kind differs from the Legal Precepts which preach of Moral Obedience And as it would be Childish from this that the Law hath Promises to infer that since the Law differs from the Gospel therefore there is no Promise to be assigned to the Gospel so it is great stupidity to argue thus The Law hath Precepts therefore no peculiar Precept is to be assigned unto the Gospel lest a new Law or an Evangelical Law should seem to be introduced c. See what follows there especially consult what he writes in Pag. 100 101 102 109 110 111 112 113 114 126 127 128 129 135 136 149 150 151. And in Pag. 82 83 84 85 86 87 where he invincibly proves against Flacius that the Gospel hath Precepts that besides the Precepts which in respect of the matter of them are common both to the Law of Works and Gospel of Grace there are Precepts which by themselves immdiately require Evangelical Faith and Repentance and that these Precepts are proper and peculiar to the Gospel Thus we see that the Opinion which is lately brought in amongst us that the Gospel hath no Precepts which require Duty and that there are no Sins against the Gospel is nothing but the old Errour of Flacius and his Party which they broached in opposition to the Learned Pious and Prudent Melancthon and which was confuted and exploded by the Reformed above an hundred years ago My 5th Withess is Henry Bullinger who tho he be suborned to be a false Witness against me yet is he a true Witness that is as much for me in this Cause as my heart can desire For thus he writes on those words of the Apostle Heb. 8.8 for finding fault with them he saith Behold the days come c. * Quod vero hunc attinet locum Testamentum hoc foedus illud Dei pactum est quo Deus voluntatem suam erga nos testatus est prorsusque nobiscum certis convenit conditionibus Coeterum cas conditiones patribus nostris Abrahae imprimis sic praescripsit Ero Deus tuus illa rerum omnisufficientia ero inquam Deus tuus seminis tui post te in fempiternum Tu vero ambula coram me esto integer haec scederis sive pacti conditiones sunt Henr. Bullinger Comment in Epist ad Hebraeos cap. 8. v. 8. pag. 533. edit Tigur 1582. As to what concerns this place The Testament is the Covenant and that compact of God whereby God hath testified his Will towards us and hath fully agreed with us upon certain conditions and those conditions he hath thus prescribed unto our Fathers and in the first place unto Abraham saying I will be thy God that All-sufficieucy of all things I say I will be thy God and the God of thy Seed after
that he might provide for the happiness of and might bountifully reward us his Subjects 2 Tim. 4.8 Joh. 10 28. and that he might destroy all his Ensmies being brought down and made his Footstool Ps 110.1 And afterwards in the Section concerning the Covenant of God there are these Questions and Answers * Q. Quid nobis promissum est in scedere gratiae R. Remissio peccatorum nova Justitia vita aeterna Q. Qua conditione haec facta nobis est promissio R Sub conditione fidei obedientiae ex fide Q. What is promised to us in the Covenant of Grace Ans Remission of Sins a new Righteousness and Eternal Life Q. Vnder what condition is that promise made to us Ans Vnder the condition of Faith and Obedience of Faith John 3.16 and 13.17 Gal. 6.16 Rom. 1.5 Thus the Edenburgh-Catechism written for the use of the Colledg and Schools there by Mr. John Adamson Principal who was afterwards a Member of the General Assembly at Glasgow in the year 1638. if I be not misinform'd and his Name I saw at St. Andrews in the List of the Names of the Members of that Synod But that which is material is this That the Catechism saith Christ was made a King that he might give us a Royal Law to be the Rule of our Faith and Life This in such a way he could not do as Mediatorial King unless the Gospel-Covenant whereof he is Mediator had Precepts and required Duty But that the Gospel-Covenant hath Precepts and requires Duty according to that Catechism is evident from this That it asserts the subsequent Blessings of the Covenant of Grace are promised to us under the condition of Faith and the Obedience of Faith and proves its assertion by John 3.16 and 13 17. Gal. 6.16 and Rom. 1.5 My 8th Witness is the Famous Mr. Durham before mentioned His words in p. 238. are The Covenant of Grace saith he is compared to free Adoption or a man's entitling of a Stranger to his Inheritance upon condition of his receiving that and to marriage betwixt Man and Wife which is frequent in Scripture not because the Covenant of Grace requireth not holiness and works but because it doth not require them actually to precede a Person 's Title to all the priviledges covenanted and doth freely entitle him to the same upon his entry therein as a Wife is entitled to what is the Husband 's upon her Marriage with him altho afterwards she be to perform the duties of that Relation rather as Duties called for by it than as Conditions of it Hence we may call the Covenant of Works a Servile Covenant and the Covenant of Grace a Filial or Conjugal Covenant and therefore altho holy Duties be required in both yet there is difference and the one is of Works and the other of Grace Thus that learned and good man Where it is as clear as the Sun that he was for the Gospel-Covenant its having Precepts and requiring Duty My 9th Witness is the Learned and Holy Mr. Rutherford who speaks fully to the Point under consideration For thus he writes Faith in God and the Moral Law that is Obedience to the moral Law in an Evangelick way are commanded in the Covenant of Grace and also some Duties touching the Seals are therein contained Again Ibid. p. 92. As the Commands and Threatnings of the Covenant of Grace lay on a real obligation upon such as are only externaly in Covenant either to obey or suffer so the Promise of the Covenant imposes an ingagement and obligation upon such to believe the Promise † Rutherford's Treatise of the Coveuant of Grace ed. Edinb An. 1655. p. 20. Again ibid. p. 154. Law-Obedience says he doth much differ from Gospel Obedience as Law-Commands from Gospel-Commands Again Ibid. p. 189. Obj. Does not the Law Command the Sinner offending God to mourn and be humbled and confess Ans It doth But it injoyns not Repentance as a way of Life with a Promise of Life to the Repenter Nor does the Law as a Covenant of Works command Justifying Faith and Reliance upon God-Redeemer or Immanuel but rather as the Law of Nature or as the Law of Thankfulness to a Ransoming Redeeming God the Law doth this tho in a special Covenant way the Gospel Commands Faith in Christ. Again ibid. p. 191. This I grant which I desire the Reader carefully to observe the Law and the Covenant of Grace do not one and the same way Command Faith and forbid unbelief I speak now of the Covenant of Works and of the Covenant of Grace as they are two Covenants specifically and formally different Again he puts the Question ib. p. 192. 103. Whether doth the Lord Mediator as Mediator command the same good Works in the Covenant of Grace which are Commanded in the Covenant of Works And then Answers According to tht matter of the thing Commanded quoad rem mandatam He Commands the same and charges upon all and every one the Moral Duty even as Mediator but simply they are not the same Quoad modum mandandi It shall not be needful to dispute whether they be Commands differing in Nature for not only doth the Mediator Command Obedience upon his interposed Authority as Law-giver and Creator but also as Lord Redeemer upon the Motive of Gospel-Constraining-Love in which notion he calls Love the keeping of his Commandments if they Love him John 14. the New Commandment of Love Finally ib. p. 198 199. he says The Obedience of Faith or Gospel-Obedience hath less of the Nature of Obedience than that of Adam or of the Elect Angels or that of Christ It 's true we are called Obedient Children and they are called the Commandments of Christ and Christ hath taken the Moral Law and made use of it in an Evangelick way yet we are more as it were patients ●in obeying Gospel-Commands not that we are meer patients as Libertines Teach for Grace makes us Willing but we have both Supernatural Habits and influence of Grace Furnished to us from the Grace of Christ who hath Merited both to us and so in Gospel Obedience we offer more of the Lords own and less of our own because he both Commands and gives us grace to Obey By all this and more that I could quote out of Mr. Rutherford's Writings it 's manifest that he believed as we do that the Gospel or Covenant of Grace hath Precepts and requires Duty and that it is not a meer absolute promise that requires no duty or us at all My 10th Witness is the late Reverend and Learned Doctor Owen whose memory I honour tho it be said that I bestowed some Disadvantageous remarks upon him but it is not true for to tell the World that he retracted what he had before confidently Written when it pleased the Lord to give him further Light as he apprehended is so far from being to his disadvantage that it is on the contrary very much for his Honour and plainly shews
that tho he was a fallible man as we all are yet he was in that an humble Man and a sincere lover of Truth And I wish Mr. G. may follow his Example for assuredly it will be more for his Reputation and Honour than obstinately to persist in the Flacian Error which some it seems have drawn him into And since he professeth to have so great an esteem for Dr. Owen I desire him and all that are concerned to consider what I shall Cite out of the Doctor 's Vindication of the Gospel in his Answer to Biddle's Socinian Catechism His words are Take the word Law strictly in reference to a Covenant end that he who performs it shall be Justified by his performance thereof so we may say * Dr. Owen 's Answer to Biddle 's Catechism pag. 384. he to wit Christ gave the Law Originally as God but as Mediator he gave no such Law or no Law in that Sense but revealed fully and clearly our Justification with God upon another account Again If they the Socinians shall say That Christ may be said to reveal the Ten Commandments because he promulged them a-new with new Motives Reasons and Encouragements I hope he will give us leave to say also That what he calls a New Commandment is not so termed in respect of the matter of it but its new Enforcement by Christ We grant † Ibid. p. 3●8 Christ revealed that Law by Moses with its New Covenant-Ends as he was the great Prophet of his Church by his Spirit from the Foundation of the World but this Smalcius denies Again That there are Precepts and Promises attending the New Covenant is granted but that it consists in any addition of Precepts to the Mosaical Law carried on in the same Tenour with it with other Promises is a Figment directly destructive of the whole Gospel and the Mediation of the Son of God ibid. page 393. And in the next page he says That Moses was a Mediator of a Covenant of Works properly and formally so called and that the Church of the Jews lived under a Covenant of Works is a no less pernicious Figment than the Former The Covenant of Works was Do this and live On perfect Obedience you shall have Life Mercy and Pardon of Sins were utter strangers to that Covenant and therefore by it the Holy Ghost tells us That no man could be saved The Church of old had The Promises of Christ Rom. 9.5 Gen. 3.15 and 12.3 were Justified by Faith Ger. 15.6 Rom. 4. Gal. 3. Obtained Mercy for their Sins and were Justified in the Lord Isa 42.24 Had the Spirit for Conversion Regeneration and Sanctification Ezek. 11.9 and 36.26 expected and obtained Salvation by Jesus Christ Things as remote from the Covenant of Works as the East from the West It 's true the Administration of the Covenant of Grace which they lived under was dark legal and low in comparison of that which we now are admitted unto since the coming of Christ in the flesh but the Covenant wherein they walked with God and that wherein we find acceptance is the same and the Justification of Abraham their Father the pattern of ours Rom. 4.4 5. And afterwards in the same book chap. 33. p. 652. the Doctor says N. 3. Nor doth Biddle inform us what he intends by keeping the Commands of God Whether an exact perfect and every way compleat keeping of them up to the highest Degree of all things in all things circumstances and concernments of them Or whether the keeping of them in an universal sincerity accepted before God according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace be intended Ner 4. What Commandments they are which he chiefly respects and under what consideration Whether all the Commandments of the Law of God as such Or whether the Gospel-Gommands of Faith and Love which the places 1 John 5.3 and Mat. 11.30 from whence he answers do respect And in the following page Doctorr Owen's 5th Answer is That to keep the Commandments of God not as the Tenour of the Covenant of Works nor in an absolute perfection of Obedience and Correspondency to the Law but sincerely and uprightly unto acceptation according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace and the Obedience it requires through the assistance of the Spirit and Grace of God is not only a thing possible but easy pleasant and delightful Thus we say That a person regenerate by the assistance of the Spirit and Grace of God may keep the Commandments of God in yielding to him in answer to them that sincere Obedience which in Jesus Christ according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace is required Yea it is to him an easy and pleasant thing so to do This is sufficient to show that Dr. Owen was far from thinking that the Gospel Covenant hath no precepts but is a meer absolute promise or Doctrine of Grace that requires nothing of us at all He says the quite contrary as appears by his words to wit that it hath precepts as well as promises and that it requires of us sincere obedience in order to our obtaining possession of Eternal salvation in Heavenly Glory I could bring many more very many worthy and Orthodox Modern Divines to bear Testimony to the point under consideration that the Gospel hath precepts and requires Duties but these are enough at present therefore I shall forbear mentioning any more except the late Reverend and Ingenious Mr. Gilbert who in his short discourse concerning the guilt of sin and pardon of it c. In the second page grants expresly that there are both Gospel-precepts and Gospel-sins and tells us 1. That Gospel precepts are mainly the same for substance with those of the Law but not exacting their observance with the same Rigour Namely for Justification And I add nor yet for salvation 2. That gospel-Gospel-sins are the Transgression of such Gospel-precepts Thus I have proved both by many clear Testimonies of God and also of good Men Ancient and Modern that the Gospel-Covenant is not without all precepts it is not such a Doctrine of grace as requires nothing of us at all but it is a Doctrine of Grace that obliges us to Duty and requires of us sincere obedience to its Evangelical precepts in an Evangelical way for our due keeping of Covenant with God in Christ and in order to our obtaining the Consummate Life and happiness through Christ promised in the Covenant Now from the foresaid Considerations and Testimonies of God and good Men it will not be difficult to gather a short and clear answer to my Reverend Brother's Reasons and Arguments which he brings to prove that the Gospel is such a Doctrine of Grace as hath no precepts and requires no duty at all SECT III. And first he argues from the nature and use of precepts They are designed says he pag. 42. As the Rule of our Actions they instruct us what to do they draw the lines of our Duty and set the limits
kind But tho we be agreed in this yet we do differ and shall differ about the Consequence for I do utterly deny that it follows by any good and necessary Consequence that God would not be infinitely wise and unchangeable and his Moral Law perfect in its kind if the Gospel have any precepts and if God have ever given to Man any new positive Law since he first created him with the Moral natural Law written in his heart And it is not without good reason that I deny Mr. Goodwins Consequence as utterly false and blasphemous For 1 according to his own Principle Gods making unto Man a new promise doth not impeach his infinite wisdom and absolute unchangeableness for in pag. 49. He saith that Repentance is a duty to which Man was tyed before any New Covenant of Grace was made and before God had revealed any thoughts of favour to him or any purposes of grace in that first promise of the Seed of the Woman breaking the Serpents head In these words he plainly acknowledges that when God first created Man and gave him the Moral Law he had not then made him any promise of Gospel grace and mercy but the first promise of that nature was made to Man after the fall And yet I do not think that Mr. Goodwin dare say that Gods making that New promise to Man did impeach his wisdom as defective or infer any change in his nature or will And if a new promise did not then I say that no more did a new precept impeach Gods wisdom as defective or infer any change in his nature or will For there is nothing can be said against a new precept as inconsistent with the infinity of Gods wisdom and his unchangeableness but the like may be said against a new promise And if I durst give my self leave to prat boldly and blasphemously against a new Gospel promise I have no more to do but to take what Mr. G. says against a New Gospel Precept and with the varying of a few words apply it to a New Gospel-Promise and I thereby prove That it 's not consistent with the Wisdom and Immutability of God to make a New Gospel-Promise just as he proves That it is inconsistent with his Wisdom and Unchangeableness to give a New Gospel-Precept For my part I dare not imitate Mr. G. in his way of Reasoning here but there want not Infidels too many who by his way of disproving a New Gospel Precept will endeavour to disprove a New Gospel-Promise and will not stick to say after the Example of my R. B. That for God to make a New Gospel-Promise after the first Legal Covenant of Works and the Legal Promise implied in it would argue That his Wisdom was deficient as not knowing at first all that was good for man and necessary to be promised to him and believed by him c. 2. God gave a new precept to Man before the fall which was really different from the Moral natural Law For instance the Command not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge c. Gen. 2.17 was such a precept This is so clear that Mr. G. has in effect confessed it pag. 47. For there he saith that the Moral natural Law regarded the Act of eating the fatal Fruit as a thing indifferent and that indeed it was a thing indifferent before the prohibition To wit by the new precept which came after the Moral natural Law and therefore must needs be really distinct from it There he confesses 1. That the Moral natural Law did not at first and by it self immediately forbid the Act of eating the foresaid Fruit. 2. That therefore it remained still a thing indifferent to eat or not to eat of that Fruit till the new precept was given 3. That it was the new precept Gen. 2.17 Which first by it self immediately prohibited the eating of it and obliged Man not to eat it and that without this it would have still remainded indifferent notwithstanding any thing that the Moral natural Law did or could say Now if before the fall God gave Man a new positive precept which first obliged him to a certain duty and forbad the Commission of the contrary sin and if this new positive precept requiring duty and forbidding Sin was then very well consistent both with the wisdom and unchangeableness of God and also with the perfection of his Moral natural Law tho it and the Moral natural Law were two things really distinct I say if it was so then before the fall I put my R. Brother to prove that after the fall it was inconsistent with Gods infinite wisdom and immutability and with the perfection of his moral Law to give unto man any New Gospel-Precept which should oblige him to Duty whereunto the moral natural Law did not by it self immediately oblige him before If Mr. G. continue to affirm this he must prove it for I utterly deny that God's giving a new Gospel Precept is inconsistent with his VVisdom and Immutability and with the perfection of his Moral natural Law and I am perswaded that he can never prove that inconsistency no more then he can prove it inconsistent with Gods wisdom and immutability and with his Moral Laws perfection to give unto Adam before the Fall the new positive Precept of not Eating the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledg after he had written the said Moral Natural Law in his heart at his first Creation If he say as in effect he doth That the moral natural Law obliged Adam not to eat of the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge because it commanded him to obey God in whatever he should require And so God's requiring Adam by a New positive Precept to abstain from eating the said Fruit is well consistent with his wisdom and with his moral Laws Perfection I answer That my R. B. may see if he will open his Eyes that this makes against him and for me For 1. He must and he doth grant That the abstaining from eating of that Fruit was first required by a new positive Precept in Order of Nature before the moral natural Law commanded any such Abstinence so that it commanded the said Abstinence only mediately and by consequence after that it was first immediately commanded by the New positive Precept superadded to the Law of Nature 2. He knows well enough that it is our professed belief that in like manner tho the Moral Natural Law the general Law of our Creation doth Command us to obey God in whatever he requires of us by any new Special Gospel Precept yet doth God first in order of Nature require our obedience to the Gospel by the New Gospel-Precept immediately and then by means of that special new Gospel-Precept the general Law of our Creation comes to take hold of our Conscience with respect thereunto and obliges us to obey God therein So that here are two Precepts that oblige us to the same thing but in different ways First There is the
they are proper to the Gospel and distinct from all the threatnings of the Law The Law knows no more of Gospel-threatnings than of Gospel-promises The threatnings of the Law lye against sinners for sins Committed the threatnings of the Gospel are against Sinners for refusing the remedy provided and tendred unto them They are superadded unto those of the Law and in them doth the Gospel when rejected become Death unto Death 2 Cor. 2.16 By the addition of that punishment contained in its threatnings unto that which was contained in the threatnings of the Law Thus Dr. Owen let any that desire further satisfaction in this matter read there what goes before and follows after this which I have here quoted and they may find it in that large discourse of the Learned Doctor I could bring more witnesses to give Testimony unto this truth that the Gospel hath its own proper threatnings and to shew that it is no new notion of mine no singular opinion of my inventing but I need no more These are sufficient to shew that it was the common faith of Christ's Church before I was born that it is so at this day and I trust it will be so after I am dead and gathered to my Fathers Having thus established the truth in the next place we must consider what Mr. G. objects aginst it and for the proof of his Negative that the Gospel hath no threatnings Obj. 1. He first cites John 3.17 p. 54. For God sent not his Son into the World to Condemn the World but that the world through him might be saved Very true what then Why then saith Mr. G. What could Christ have said more to assure us that in the Declaration of the Gospel he did not threaten Death but promise salvation to Sinners whom the Law menaced and who were Condemned by its sentence Answer here is a piece of Confidence that I do not remember I have ever met with the like Doth this brother think that he can draw Men to his opinion by confident talk and big words without so much as a shadow of right reason For in this Argument there is not the least appearance of reason Christ tells us that God sent not his Son into the world to Condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved Therefore he could have said no more to assure us that the Gospel hath no threatnings or that in the Declaration of the Gospel he did not threaten Death but promise life to Sinners This Consequence is such as Mr. G. may be fond of as being like enough to his way of reasoning in other parts of his discourse but I do not think that any Scholar who knows the rules of right reasoning will ever admire it or be convinced by it For my part I must say that I have not known a Learned Man to have reasoned so loosely and incoherently in a serious matter of such importance as this If one should seriously reason thus in the Schools of Cambridge or Oxford c. I doubt not but he would be l●●●ed at And if he be not serious but only writes thus to shew his wit which I cannot prove and therefore will not affirm I am sorry that I should have any thing to do with him But supposing that he is himself mistaken and did not meerly design to act a part and right or wrong to draw away Disciples after him I owe him that service of Love as to show him his mistake and direct him into the way of truth which is that we all profess to Love and seek after And it is no hard matter to do that for in order thereunto there is no more needful but to tell Mr. G. that if our Lord Christ had said That God sent not his Son into the world to threaten the world with death in any sense but only to make an absolute promise of Life to the world Then he had said a great deal more than he doth in John 3.17 To assure us that the Gospel hath no threatnings or that in the Declaration of the Gospel he did not threaten Death but promise Life to Sinners For so the thing had been undeniably evident to wit that the Gospel is nothing but an absolute promise and that it hath neither threatning nor conditional promise Whereas having said no more in John 3.17 But that God sent not his Son into the world to Condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved We can have no assurance at all from those words that the Gospel hath no threatnings For the Gospel's having Conditional threatnings that if Men do not believe and repent they shall be Condemned is so far from being inconsistent with Christ's not coming to Condemn but to save the world that on the contrary the said conditional threatnings are one means to secure the world from Condemnation and to bring them unto salvation It seems Mr. Goodwin thinks that if once the Gospel threaten an unbeliever by saying to him if thou do not believe in Christ thou wilt be Condemned the Man is undone for ever he is Irrecoverably lost and cannot possibly be saved But that is a very gross mistake and such a Consequence is so far from being true that on the contrary such a conditional threatning may through the Grace of God be an useful means to fetch the Man off from his unbelief and to bring him unto faith in Christ and through faith unto salvation Hence Mr. Hutcheson on John 12.47 Saith p. 256. that not only rich promises and gracious offers but even sharp threatnings are a means appointed of God to stir up Men to embrace the Gospel And this is not only true of the sharp threatnings of the Law but it is true also of the threatnings of the Gospel Hence Julius Firmicus many hundred years ago said * Misericordia Dei errantes homines corrigere frequenti comminatione Festinat Jul. Firmic Matern de Errore Profan Religionum Pag. 80. Edit Oxon. 1678. The mercy of God makes hast to correct or reclaim erring Men by frequent threatnings And our Saviour no doubt was of this mind when he gave Commission to his Apostles and bids them go into all the World and Preach the Gospel to every Creature saying Mar. 16.15 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be Damned 2. 2dly p. 54. He objects that John 12.47 Our Saviour saith if any Man hear my words and believe not I Judge him not For I came not to Judge the world but to save the world And from these words he infers That Christ doth not threaten much less Judge and Condemn an unbeliever I Answer that Mr. G. here draws two inferences from Christ's words John 12.47 1. That he doth not threaten an unbeliever now because he did not come to Judge but to save the world then 2. That he doth much less Judge and Condemn an unbeliever now because he did not come to Judge
in the Barbarous Nations which are most invincibly ignorant of Christ and are under no obligation to Believe in him because the gospel-Gospel-Law or Covenant of Grace which can only be known by Supernatural Revelation is not at all Revealed and made known to them but they are guilty of gross Idolatry and other enormous Sins against the Light and Law of Nature for which they are justly Condemned Rom. 2.12 And this shews that my R. Brothers second amazing absurdity doth not concern me for whether it do or do not naturally spring from God's speaking generally to all Men without exception and saying Believe in Christ and you shall Live It doth not touch me and the Cause which I maintain for these two plain Reasons First Because I do utterly deny the Antecedent from which it is said naturally to spring I deny that God by the Gospel speaks generally to all the Men in the World without exception of the most barbarous Nations and Commands them all to Believe in Christ with a Promise of Life if they do Believe in him Secondly For the consequent which is said to spring naturally from the said Antecedent I disown it also to wit That God contrary to his Wisdom and Goodness promises Pardon to all Men upon the impossible condition of Believing in Christ by their meer Natural Powers I am so far from saying this that on the contrary I say there may be many Millions of Men in the World who cannot Believe in Christ by their meer Natural Powers to whom God doth not Promise Pardon of Sin upon the impossible condition of Believing in Christ by their meer Natural Powers And hence it plainly appears that by my Principle I am under no obligation either on the one hand to join with my R. Brother in denying that the Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace hath any Conditional Promises or on the other hand to joyn with the Arminians in affirming that there is an universal sufficient Grace i. e. as Mr. G. expresses it That all Men have sufficient means afforded them to Believe in Christ and that God gives help enough to enable them to Believe if they will and whenever themselves please I thank God I can by my Principle walk safely in the middle way between these two Extreams and not incidere in Scyllam cupiens virare Charybdin And I think it had become Mr. G. to have been more modest than to have past such a Censure upon our most able and judicious Divines who have maintained that the Gospel hath Conditional Promises as that they could not defend the Truth against the Arminians but upon their Principle that the Gospel hath Conditional Promises they ought all to have turned Arminians For this is in effect to say That Whitaker Ames Twiss our British Divines of the Synod of Dort Rutherford Rivet Spanhem Turretin Isaac Junius Triglandius Pool and innumerable more who held that the Gospel hath Conditional Promises were all blind and did not see the mischievous Consequence of their opinions which Consequence if they had followed they themselves must all have turned Arminians and therefore neither did nor could rightly confute the Arminian errors but young Mr. Goodwin is the Man that is above them all inlightned to see that the Gospel hath no conditional promises and by that means he is qualified to be our Champion against those Hereticks who were too hard for the Synod of Dort for Ames Twiss Rutherford Spanhem Durham c. Because these old weak Men were fond of one Arminian opinion to wit that the Gospel hath conditional promises which hath an inseperable Connexion with the whole Arminian System Disc pag. 58. Obj. 3. Thirdly he argues thus against the Gospel's having conditional promises The Scriptures urged by my Reverend Brother do not signify that God passed his word to all Men by a new Law established amongst them that if they obey it and believe and repent they shall assuredly be saved For God always speaks the purposes of his mind and none of his words contradict his heart but he never decreed either absolutely or conditionally that all Men should be Eternally saved I Answer that my R. Brother's objection as here set down in his own express words doth not at all reach me nor make against the truth which I defend For I never said that God hath passed his word to all Men by a new Law established amongst them that if they obey it and believe and repent they shall assuredly be saved I am so far from saying this that in effect I have plainly said the contrary in the Apol. pag. 200. l. 21.22 23 24 25. There my express formal words are that there are Heathens who never heard nor could hear of the Gospel for want of an objective Revelation of it Now by these words I certainly meant and do still mean to signify to the world that God hath not passed his word to all Men even to the most Barbarous Nations by a new Law of Grace i. e. by the Gospel established among them That if they obey the Gospel and believe in Christ they shall assuredly be saved This objection then I might dismiss as impertinent and not militating against me who am not such an Vniversalist as Mr. G. would make people believe that I am tho I have declared the contrary and any body would think that I should know mine own mind better than another Man especially Man who knows not my principles but by my book unless he suffers himself to be imposed upon by believing the false reports of his good Friend I hope that for the future my R. B. will be so just as to take the measure of my principles from my Printed Books and not from the reports of the Accuser But it may be my R. brother will say that tho I be no such an Universalist yet it is certain that I hold that the Gospel hath conditional promises and that the conditional promises are to the whole visible Church even to the non-elect to whom the Gospel is Preached To which I say again that it is true and most certain that such is my Judgment and I am not singular in it for as I shewed in the Apology it is the Common Doctrine of the reformed Churches and Divines Mr. Rutherford saith If the former sense be intended as how can it be denied The word of the Covenant is Preached to you an offer of Christ is made in the Preached Gospel to you * Covenant of Life opened part 1. Chap. 13. pag. 87.88 Then it cannot be denied but the promise is to all the Reprobate in the visible Church whether they believe or not for Christ is Preached and promises of the Covenant are Preached to Simon Magus to Judas and all the Hypocrites who stumble at the word to all the Pharisees as is clear Mat. 13.20 21 22 23. Act. 13.44 45 46. Act. 18.5 6. Mat. 21.43 1 Pet. 2.7 8. And again a little after in the same book pag. 90.
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 ●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
priority is enough for that pag. 33. To which I Answer 1. That I never wrote nor thought that the condition of the Gospel-Covenant is not in our power in any sense but only that it is not in our meer natural power with which it is very well consistent that it be in our Supernatural Power which we receive from the Spirit of God and with his assistance freely use in performing the said condition of the Covenant For the truth of this I appeal to the common sense and reason of all honest Men who will be at the pains to read and consider what they will find Written in the Apol. pag. 36. Last Paragraph and pag. 47. at the end And pag. 48. from l. 1. to l. 13. and pag. 49. from l. 9. to 20. and pag. 50. Where by the Testimonies of Augustin and Bradwardin I expresly shew that the performing of the condition is in our power through the grace of God and that we have a subordinate Dominion and Power over our own Act. And Lastly in pag. 67. I shew from Dr. Twiss that we not only have Supernatural Power from God to produce the Act which is the condition but that at the same time when we produce it we have a Power a natural Power not to produce it Whence I conclude that it is a gracious Evangelical condition freely performed by us See our confession of Faith Chap. 10. Act. 1. Now let any Judge by this whether I do absolutely deny the condition to be in our Power Nay tho I deny it in one sense to be in our Power yet in another sense I do most clearly affirm it to be in our power As for the condition it s not being uncertain nor Meritorious it is true I did and do maintain that it is not uncertain with respect to God and the event nor is it in the least truly and properly Meritorious but I deny the Consequence that therefore it is not properly a condition Evangelical And whereas in the 4th place he says that I deny it to be a legal condition it is true I have denied and shall deny it to be a Legal condition in the sense explained at large from the end of pag. 37. to 41. It is not so a legal condition as to have the same place and Office in the New-Covenant and Law of Grace which perfect and personal sinless obedience was to have had in the first Old Covenant and Law of works c. But to infer from hence that because I deny it to be a legal condition in this sense therefore I deny it to be a legal condition in all and every sense whatsoever is a poor fallacious way of arguing And how can this R. B. seriously think that I should ever deny it to be a legal condition in any sense at all when as he knows that I do all along call it the condition of the Covenant and Law of Grace If then I believe it to be the condition of the Covenant of Grace I cannot chuse but believe it to be a federal condition and so if I believe it to be the condition of the Law of Grace I cannot chuse but in some sense believe it to be a legal condition But you may say in what sense do I believe it to be a legal condition Why I Answer look in what sense the Gospel-Covenant is a Law in the same sense Faith for instance is the legal condition of it and so I believe it to be Now we do not say that the Gospel-Covenant is meerly and simply a Law but that it is a Law of Grace properly a Law of Grace And therefore faith is not a condition meerly and simply legal as the condition of the old Law of works was but it is a condition graciously legal because it is the condition of the Law of Grace and we are effectually enabled to perform it by the God of all Grace This that Brother might have easily perceived by our words to be our meaning if he had sought the Truth sincerely when he read our Apology But tho he stile himself a seeker p. 103. Yet it appears too evident by his Parenthesis p. 33. l. 29.30 31. That he sought some other thing than the truth for there he brings me in saying That the Gospel is a Law and that this Law is the condition of the Covenant or Gospel and yet it is not a legal condition But where do I say so That the Law is the condition of the Covenant I defy any Man living to find those words or any words of the like import in all the Apol. I leave it to others whom it may become to write after this manner The Gospel or the Covenant is a Law and that Law is the condition of the Covenant And so the same thing is the condition of it self For shame give over such little tricke and have regard to truth and honesty But now was there nothing in the Apo● that gave occasion to fasten upon us such a notorious falsehood I Answer I profess sincerely that there is nothing in it all from beginning to end that could give any just occasion or so much as a colourable pretence to charge me with holding that the Gospel is a Law or Covenant and that that Law is the condition of the Covenant We have said indeed in the explication of our sense of the Law of Grace pag. 22. l. 35.36 That this Law of Grace is the conditional part of the Covenant of Grace But to be the conditional part of the Covenant is quite another thing than the condition of the Covenant for the conditional part of the Covenant is that which Prescribes and Commands the condition and which promises a blessing and benefit to the person who performs it And therefore must be quite another thing than the condition it self Here then some body has discovered his ignorance and writes he knows not what or if not that He has discovered somewhat worse and that which I forbear to call by its proper Name Because he might say that it is bitter Language to tell him his fault in plain terms It is sweet unto some Men publickly to mis-represent their brethren to the People for such ends as they know best but it is bitter to them for to find themselves publickly reproved for it We desire all whom it may concern to learn to understand our Apol. before they take upon them to dispute against it and censure it And they may easily understand it if they will for it is purposely written in a plain stile that all may know what our Judgment is concerning the nature of the New-Covenant See pag. 68. from lin 16. to 21. Where we briefly and plainly distinguish between the absolute and conditional part of it and shew what the one and the other is as we had also done so largely before that none can mistake our meaning unless they have very weak heads or which is worse wilfully shut their Eyes that they
may throw dirt at us in the Dark His inference then fails that if faith for instance be not a condition in a Law-sense it must be only in a Logical or Physical sense and so it will not be a proper condition For 1. Why may not some Logical condition be a proper condition 2. Tho Faith be not a condition in one Law-sense yet it is a condition in another Law-sense It is not a condition in the sense of the old Law of works but it is a condition in the Sense of the New Evangelical Law of Grace And from hence it appears that what he says of Logical and Physical Connexion in these propositions if a Man be reasonable he is capable of Learning c. And if Wood be laid to the fire it will burn is wholly impertinent to the present purpose For in these propositions the necessity of the Connexion between the Subjects and the Predicates arises from the very nature of the thing but in this conditional promise If thou sincerely believest thou shalt be Justified and Pardoned The necessary truth of the Connexion Doth not arise meerly from the nature of the things but from the Lord 's free and gracious will and positive Law-Constitution Revealed in the Gospel Rom. 10.8 9. And so Faith is neither A meer Logical nor Physical condition but it is a Moral Legal condition in a very safe and proper sense It is not Legal in the sense of the Law of works but it is Legal in the sense of the Law of Grace And so it is a gracious Evangelical condition What he talks p. 33. l. ult and p. 34. Of the orderliness of the Covenant and of the necessary consequence of Justification and Glory upon the duties of Faith and Repentance doth not one jot help him to break the force of our Arguments and to shew That the Covenant is not conditional and that the giving of the benefit is not suspended till the Condition be performed For we shewed in the Apology that the Covenant hath indeed an Order in it between the Duty and the Subsequent Benefit but that That Order is a Conditional Order constituted by the positive will of God revealed in the Gospel and that it is God's positive will to suspend his giving of the benefit for instance pardon of sin till we through his grace freely perform the duty of actual Faith So that we shall not be actually pardoned till we being adult have actually believed and then we shall be pardoned but not before This we proved and our Arguments remain unanswered and we know they can never be solidly answered We need no more Arguments to prove the Conditionality of the Covenant in the sense that we hold it to be conditional tho we are not without other Arguments and could tell him what it is like he knows well enough in what books written by Orthodox Divines he may find a great many more Arguments to this purpose To tell people confidently That because it is a Testament it can have no Condition is to deceive them For it may very well be a Testament and yet have a gracious Evangelical Condition A man can make his own Testament so as to prescribe proper conditions in it and sometimes doth so surely then the Lord could prescribe a Condition in his Testament and he hath done it But as he is a gracious Testator so the Condition prescribed in his Testament is gracious too It seems to be the fundamental mistake of some brethren to think that the Gospel of Christ is a Testament so absolute as not to partake of the nature of a proper Covenant whereas in truth the Gospel partakes both of the nature of an absolute Testament and also of a conditional Covenant And this it may very well do in different respects In respect of the absolute promises it partakes of the nature of an absolute Testament and in respect of the conditional promises it partakes of the nature of a conditional Covenant And then the absolute promise of Grace to perform the condition makes the conditional promises Eventually sure to all the elect And thus the Covenant is a Covenant of Grace indeed a Covenant well ordered in all things and sure 2 Sam. 23.5 But saith that R. B. pag. 33. By condition they mean not a condition properly in a Law or federal sense as we use the word in bargains between Man and Man Answer What then doth it follow that because we use not the word condition properly in the sense of a humane Law or Covenant therefore it cannot be a proper condition in another Law-sense to wit in the sense of a Divine Law of Grace This consequence we deny and so doth Mr. Fox and Mr. Durham and it lies on that brother to prove it for we do not take his word for a proof Again in pag. 34. He says That the conditional Particle If used in Testaments doth not suspend but demonstrate and design the thing promised Others would say but demonstrate and describe the Legatees and some certain time and manner of Conveyance From whence he would infer that there are no conditional promises in the Gospel I Answer 1. Suppose that were true of humane Testaments which are purely Testaments and do no ways partake of the nature of a conditional Covenant it doth not follow that it must be true also in the Divine Testament of the Gospel which partakes both of the nature of an absolute Testament and also of a conditional Covenant 2. It is not universally true of humane Testaments for I can make my Testament so as to suspend the giving of certain Legacies to persons named in it upon their performing of some condition so that if they perform the condition they shall have the Legacies but not till then And if they never perform the condition they shall never have the Legacies But that brother objects further that if the Author of the Apol. by suspension understand a legal suspension it is the same with a Legal condition which he has denied before for conditio est dispositionis suspensio ex eventu incerto ei opposito and has an obliging influence on the promiser and confers a title of right to the benefit promised Answer And we have shewed that this brother doth foully wrest the words of the Apol. to a sense quite different from that true sense which we professedly and expresly give of the word legal condition See in pag. 37.38 c. The explication which we give of it at large on purpose to prevent Mens misunderstanding of us as this Man doth The explication begins thus Which that our meaning to wit of a not Legal but Evangelical condition may be understood by all we explain thus we do not believe that our faith Repentance and sincere obedience which are conditions of Justification and Glorification according to the Tenour of the Covenant of Grace have the same place and office in this New Covenant and Law of Grace which most perfect and
of the Church after the Apostles do expresly call the Gospel-Covenant by the Name of the New Law 3. Because many or our Reformed Divines since the Reformation have called the Gospel a New Law The Synod of Dort did so call it with Approbation as I have read in the Acts of the Synod See Act. Synod Dordrect part 2. p. 104. and Part 3. p. 124. and 139. and 208. That excellent Person Mr. Hugh Binning called the Gospel a New Law in his Sinners Sanctuary on Rom. 8.2 p. 72. And Mr. Durham expresly called it The Law of Grace Durham on the Revelation First Edit p. 259. For these Reasons I hold it very lawful to call the Gospel a New Law And yet if my Reverend Brother please I will agree with him upon the termes and with the proviso's aforesaid to lay aside the word New and will content my self with calling the Gospel a Law and a Law of Grace But if he will not agree to the Termes and Conditions before-mentioned then be it known to all Men whom it may concern that it is no fault of mine that we are not agreed as to this matter for I have offer'd to deny my self the use of my just liberty for Peace sake and more I cannot do with a good Conscience and therefore through Grace will not do it The Scriptures of truth often call the Gospel a Law and I have proved from Scripture that it is a Law of Grace therefore I believe it to be a Law and a Law of Grace a Law of Grace that hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Treatnings and as I believe so I Speak and Write I impose on no Man's Conscience and I hope no Protestant will seek to impose upon mine I will not deny my inward beliefe of the Gospel's being a New Covenant or Law of Grace but intend through Grace to live and die in the profession of that Faith But as for the use of the words New Law simply and without any addition of something that may explain their meaning I am content on the termes aforesaid to forbear it as Beza desired But if my R. Brother do not agree to the Termes ment●oned then I am at liberty and will endeavour to use my liberty as Prudence and Charity shall direct in calling or not calling the Gospel a New Law for though I can forbear calling it by that Name yet I cannot believe nor say that it is unlawful so to call it I shall Conclude with the Testimony of Tertullian who in his Book of Prescription against Hereticks tells us That in his Time i. e. near Fifteen hundred years ago and before the Roman Anti-Christ was born It was a part of the Rule of Faith or Creed universally believed by all Orthodox Christians That Christ Preached the New Law and Promise of the Kingdom of Heaven whereby Tertullian meant the New Covenant of Grace as that which requires Duty and prescribes Conditions unto Men and promises Blessings and Benefits for Christ's sake unto those who through the Grace of the Spirit perform the Duties and Conditions prescribed whereof the main and principal is Faith in Christ This is evident by what he Writes in his Book against the Jews Chap. 1. p. 122. and Chap. 2. p. 125. and Chap. 6. p. 131. And in his Fourth and Fifth Books against Marcion c. Lib. 5. c. 3. His words in his Book of Prescription against Hereticks are as followeth * Regula est autem fidei ut jam hinc quid defendamus profiteamur illa scilicet qua creditur unum omnino Deum esse nec alium praeter mundi conditorem qui universa ex nihilo produxerit per Verbum suum primo omnium emissum id verbum Filius ejus appellatum in nomine dei varie visum Patriarchis in Prophetis semper auditum postremò delatum ex Spiritu Dei et virtute in Virginem Mariam carnem factum in utero ejus et ex ea natum hominem et esse Jesum Christum exinde praedicasse novam legem et novam promissionem regni coelorum virtutes fecisse fixum Cruci tertia die resurrexisse in caeles ereptum sedisse ad dextram patris misisse vicariam vim Spiritus Sancti qui credentes agat venturum cum claritate ad sumendos Sanctos in vitae aeternae et promissorum coelestium fructum et ad prophanos judicandos igni perpetuo facta utriusque partis resuscitatione cum carnis restitutione Haec regul● a Christo ut probabitur instituta nulla habet a pud nos quaestiones nisi quas Haereses inferun● et quae Haereticos faciunt Tertull. lib. de praescript Adversus Haereticos p. 100. Edit Basil 1550. But the Rule of Faith that we may now hereby profess what we defend is that to wit whereby we believe that there is but one God and that he is no other than the Creator of the World who produced all things of nothing by his WORD who first before all Creatures proceeded from him or was begotten by him that that WORD called His Son variously appeared to the Patriachs in God's Name was always heard in the Prophets and at last by the Spirit and Power of God came upon the Virgin Mary was made Flesh in her Womb and of her was Born a Man and is Jesus Christ That afterwards he Preached the New Law and New Promise of the Kingdom of Heaven wrought Miracles was Crucified Rose again from the Dead the third Day and being taken up into Heaven sits at the Right-hand of God That he sent the Vicarious Power of the Holy Spirit who might Influence and Guide those who Believe That he will come again in Glory to take up the Saints into the Possession or Enjoyment of Eternal Life and of the Heavenly Blessedness promised and to Judge and Condemn the Prophane unto Eternal Fire after he hath Raised up both Parties to wit the Just and the Unjust having restored their Flesh or Bodies to them This Rule being Instituted by Christ as shall be proved it admits of no Controversies amongst us Christians but those which Heresies Introduce and which make Men Hereticks FINIS